SULLEMAN and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns bail applications filed by three accused persons, Sulleman, Rafique, and Anwar, in relation to a criminal case involving allegations of firing and causing injuries to a victim. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail, considering the nature of the injuries, the specific roles attributed to each, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that while the accused Anwar was not entitled to bail due to the specific role of causing injuries attributed to him, which brought his case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the other two applicants, Rafique and Sulleman, were entitled to bail. The court reasoned that Rafique's alleged role was limited to firing in the air, and Sulleman's role was limited to instigation, with the State conceding to their release. The key principle laid down is that where specific roles of causing injuries are attributed to an accused, the case falls within the prohibitory clause, precluding bail at the pre-trial stage.
- Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when specific allegations of causing injuries are attributed to them?
- Can bail be granted to an accused whose alleged role is limited to instigation or firing in the air when the State does not oppose the application?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. This order shall dispose of the applications cited above, which arise out of the same crime. In Criminal Bail Application No,179 of 2003 applicant Sulleman has sought bail before arrest and in Criminal Bail Application No,180 of 2003 the applicants Rafique and Anwar have sought bail after their arrest.
2. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that accused Anwar, Nizamuddin, Sulleman, Sharafuddin and Rafique entered into the house of complainant on 6-2-2003 at 8-30 p.m. Anwar and Nizamuddin had guns and the rest had mausers, At the instigation of Sulleman, Anwar and Nizamuddin fired at Mst.
3. Nawab Zadi, but the fires hit Mst. Salma, who raised cries and fell down. The accused went away.
4. Mst. Salma received injuries on her thigh, leg and hand.
5. I have heard Mr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. for the State. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that no specific fire shot has been attributed to Rafique, therefore, his case calls for further inquiry particularly, when co-accused Sharafuddin to whom similar role has been ascribed, has been let off by the police. He further submitted that the allegations against Anwar are same, as against accused Nizamuddin but the latter has been let off by the police. Further, the injuries are not on vital part of the body, therefore, in view of law laid down in 'Muhammad Anwar v. State' 1976 SCMR 16$ and 'Muhammad Afsar v. State' 1994 SCM R 2051 he is entitled to bail. As regards applicant Sulleman he argued that he is an aged person and has been involved with mala fide intention and the only allegation against him is of instigation.
6. Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, learned A.A.-G. opposed the bail plea in respect of applicant Anwar, as there are injuries on the person of baby Salma, which are specifically attributed to Anwar. He conceded to grant of bail to the remaining two applicants namely Rafique and Sulleman.
7. I have considered these contentions carefully.
8. The maximum punishment for the injuries caused to baby Salma is seven years for the offence under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. It is to be noted that in case of attempt to commit Qatl-i-Amd within the meaning of section 324, P.P.C. the punishment is to be awarded in addition to punishment of ten years and fine provided in the first part of the said section. It cannot, therefore, be argued that the case of accused Anwar does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, A Cr.P.C.
9. Moreover, specific role of causing injuries has been attributed to him, it is pre-mature to hold that his case would call for further inquiry. The application for bail in respect of Anwar is, therefore, dismissed.
10. Since the only allegation against Rafique is that of fires in the air, while Sulleman's role is of instigation to others and the State Counsel has also no objection to grant of bail to them, Rafique is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicant Sulleman is confirmed on the same terms.
11. The applications stand disposed of.