ABDUL RAHEEM and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three accused persons charged with attempted murder and causing injuries during a dispute over the management of a school. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the conflicting medical and oral evidence regarding the specific injuries sustained by the complainant. The court held that the applicants Mushtaq and Mumtaz, who were specifically alleged to have fired pistol shots at the victim, were not entitled to bail as their actions fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically regarding the charge of attempted murder under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Conversely, the court granted bail to the third applicant, Abdul Raheem, noting that the single non-vital lathi injury attributed to the group of four assailants could not be specifically linked to him, thereby distinguishing his case from the others. The judgment reaffirms that bail may be refused where specific roles in serious offenses are established, while distinguishing cases where individual culpability for specific injuries remains ambiguous.
- Does a case involving an attempt to commit murder fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the specific perpetrator of a non-vital injury cannot be identified among multiple accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the medical evidence contradicts the number of shots alleged to have been fired by multiple assailants?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---There is a dispute between the applicants and complainant party on the running of School. In this background it is alleged that on 2-4-2005 at 10-00 p.m in the street Ward No.2 Ahmedabad Colony applicants Mushtaq, Mumtaz and Abdul Raheem armed with deadly weapons came there. They gave Hakal to complainant and P.W. Amanullah who was present there and abused them. Thereafter Mushtaq and Mumtaz fired pistol shots at Amanullah in order to kill him. Amanullah after receiving injuries fell down on the ground, then accused armed with Lathies gave Lathi blows to Amanullah. The complainant raised cries which attracted P.Ws Hizbullah and Abdul Sattar. Thereafter the complainant lodged the report.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that there is conflict between medical and oral evidence, therefore, the applicants are entitled -to concession of bail.
3. ' On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Has raised objection to grant of bail on the ground that the names of applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing fire-arm and Lathi injuries to the injured, therefore they are not entitled to concession of bail.
4. ' 1 have considered the arguments of learned counsel and have perused the record.
5. In this case the injured has received two type of injuries viz. Fire-arm and Lathies injuries. It is alleged by the complainant that applicants Mushtaq and Mumtaz fired from pistols at Amanullah in order to kill him. The medical certificate shows that Amanullah received one fire arm injury on his chest near the nipple. The allegation is that two persons had fired at Amanullah in order to kill but the injured received only one injury. Thus it appears that out of two fire-arm shots one shot hit the injured and other shot was missed. But the fact remains that an attempt was made by both the applicants to kill the injured. The said injury is on the vital part of Amanullah. As such the case of applicants Mumtaz and Mushtaque will fall under section 324/34, P.P.C., therefore, their case would fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. As regards the Lathi injuries caused to Amanullah the allegation is that 4 persons had caused Lathi injuries on the person of Amanullah but he received only one Lathi injury on his leg which is non vital-part of the body of Amanullah. According to Dr. The said injury would fall under section 337- F(ii), P.P.C. Which is punishable for 3 years. It is not known as to who has caused the said injury therefore case of applicant Abdul Raheem is distinguishable from the case of applicants Mushtaque and Mumtaz and his case is fit for grant of bail.
7. After giving due consideration the material available on the record, I am of the opinion that applicants Mushtaque and Mumtaz are not entitled to concession of bail, therefore, their bail application is dismissed, whereas applicant Abdul Raheem is entitled to the concession of bail therefore he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.75,000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) on furnishing solvent surety with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. ' The bail application is partly allowed and partly dismissed.