MUHAMMAD SARWAR alias ARSHAD vs STATE
This is a criminal petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 452, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist to maintain the petitioner's incarceration under Section 324, given that the injury attributed to the petitioner was on a non-vital part of the body and lacked repetition. The court held that since the injury was on a non-vital part (the knee), no repetition of the blow occurred, and the final report regarding the injury was pending, the case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that an injury on a non-vital part without repetition prima facie negates the immediate intention to cause death under Section 324 PPC at the bail stage.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the firearm injury is sustained on a non-vital part of the body without any repetition?
- Does the absence of a final medical opinion regarding an injury at the bail stage warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks after arrest bail in Case FIR. No, 336/2003 date 17.12.2003 under Sections 324, 452, 337-F(iii) 337-F(v), 148 & 149 P] registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as stated in the FIR lodged be the complainant is that on the fateful day at about 6:30 a.m. the complaint alongwith his family was present in the house of his paternal Uncle. The accused persons variously armed entered into the house by sealing over wall.
The complainant and his paternal cousins in order to save themes entered into the room and locked the door from inner side. The Accused party tried to break the door, whereupon, females of the complainant pa confronted with the accused persons, then accused Mumtaz asked co- accused to open the fire, the accused persons started to make aerial firing and accused Muhammad Azhar made a riffle fire, which hit to Mst. Faizan Bibi on her left thigh and Muhammad Arshad (Petitioner) also made a rifle fire, which hit to Mst. Tasleem Akhtar on her left knee. The occurrence was seen by Amjad Zia and Farooq and they made counter attack in the shape of aerial firing with rifle 222 and then the accused party succeeded to escape from the spot raising their weapons of offence in the air.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner is in fact Sarwar S/O. Manzoor Ahmad, while, in the FIR it has been wrongly mentioned as Arshad; that no final opinion with respect to the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to Mst. Tasleem Akhtar has so far been obtained by the police; that the seat of the injury is knee of the victim, which by no means can be termed to be a vital part of the body, so as to attract the intention to kill, therefore, the provisions of Section 324 PPC are not applicable and the only allegation that can be raised against the petitioner would become that of 337-F(v) PPC, which is punishable for 5 years; that no recovery memo is available on record with respect to the crime weapon; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 19.1.2004; that admittedly there is previous enmity between the parties, therefore, question of false implication is also involved in the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that the final report with respect to the injury will be filed at the time of trial; that the recovery memo of the crime weapon is available on the record of a case registered against the petitioner under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The seat of injury is undoubtedly on a non-vital part of the body. the petitioner has not repeated any injury to anybody else. The police has also not yet collected the final report regarding the injury received by Mst. Tasleem Akhtar. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.1.2004. Primaacie intention to kill does not appear to be available keeping in view the heat of injury and non- repetition. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of warned trial Court.
7. Before parting with the order, it is to be observed that Muhammad Iqbal, ASI, present in Court has submitted his explanation for on-production of judicial record on the last date of hearing. It appears to be satisfactory. No further proceedings in that regard are called for.