HABIBULLAH vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application arose from a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where three accused persons allegedly fired pistols simultaneously at the complainant, causing injuries to his right leg. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of specific attribution of the injuries, the non-vital location of the wounds, and the absence of any weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that because the FIR made no specific attribution of the injuries to any particular accused, the injury was on a non-vital part of the body, and no weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner, the case for bail was made out. The Court laid down the principle that where multiple accused are alleged to have fired simultaneously without specific attribution of injuries, and the injury is on a non-vital part with no weapon recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted where multiple accused are alleged to have fired simultaneously but no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner?
- Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body, coupled with the lack of recovery of the weapon of offence, support the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the investigation is complete and they are no longer required for further investigation, despite being nominated in the FIR?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed for post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No.76 of 2005 dated 11-3-2005 under sections 324, 34, 109 P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar District Bhakkar.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R. Three accused persons, namely, Habib Ullah, Ameer Abdullah and Dilbar attacked complainant at 6.15 A.M and fired with .30-bore pistols simultaneously. Before above attack, the co-accused Dilbar raised Lalkara and told complainant that since he refused to compromise in a Zina case, therefore, they had come to teach him a lesson. Firing of three accused persons hit the4complainant on his right leg.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner in F.I.R. Three persons have been shown firing at the complainant simultaneously. There is no specific injury attributed to the petitioner or his co- accused. The MLR shows two injuries on the person of complainant, therefore, in absence of a specific attribution, it is not possible to attribute an injury to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that in any case the injury is shown to have been caused on non- vital part of injured. No recovery of weapon of offence has been effected from the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits that order of learned Additional Sessions Judge clearly mentions that petitioner was declared to be empty-handed at the place of occurrence. The petitioner has already served for more than two months and investigation in this case is complete. He is not required any more for the purpose of investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner stands nominated in the F.I.R. And DSP Investigation' has declared him guilty. She also submits that empties of .30-bore pistol have been recovered from the place of occurrence. The petitioner has been challaned which has been submitted before a competent Court.
S. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The contents of F.I.R. Clearly show that no specific attribution has been made to the petitioner.
Likewise it is not possible at this stage to fix the responsibility as to which accused caused injuries to the complainant. According to F.I.R. The petitioner was armed yet he did not make any attempt to repeat firing to hit the complainant on either of his vital parts. Injury is only caused on right leg which is a non-vital part of body. Though the petitioner is alleged to be armed yet no recovery of weapon of offence has been effected from him. Investigation in this case is complete, the petitioner is not required any more for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, in view of the above, this bail application is allowed, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.