MUHAMMAD SOHAIL alias JUGI vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Sohail alias Jugi, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the injury attributed to him was not on a vital part of the body, the investigation had declared him innocent, and the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the injury fell under Section 337-F(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which does not attract the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nine months without the trial commencing. The key principle laid down is that where an injury is inflicted on a non-vital part of the body, it is a significant factor in determining the intent under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and such cases often warrant further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does an injury inflicted on a non-vital part of the body take an offense outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the investigation conducted at the behest of the complainant found the accused innocent?
- Is a delay in the commencement of a trial a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner through the instant application seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 73/2004 dated 23..3.2004 under Section 324/34 PPC registered with Police Station Qureshi, Distt. Muzaffargarh.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant Muhammad Billal s/o Khadim Hussain are that petitioner alongwith his co-accused caused fire-arm injury to the injured Muhammad Billal.
Hence, the instant case vide FIR No, 73/2004 dated 23.3.2004 under Section 324/34 PPC was registered at Police Station Qureshi.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an unexplained delay of 12 hours in lodging of FIR whereas the distance between place of occurrence and police station is only five miles; that according to the prosecution, a single fire-arm injury is attributed to the petitioner; that during the repeated investigations conducted on the behest of the complainant the story narrated in the FIR was found false and petitioner was found innocent; that the petitioner is a boy of 18 years of age and is a first offenders; that the injuries attributed to the accused is GhayrJaifah entailing maximum punished for 5 years which does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.; that the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is behind the bar for the last 9 months and no progress has been made in the trial and that petitioner is a previous non- convict.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the bail application on the grounds that; petitioner and other co-accused are nominated in the FIR; that, the recovery has been affected from him; that the challan has been submitted on 14.4.2004 in which charge has been framed and witnesses has been summoned but no evidence is recorded as yet.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied that in the investigation is conducted on the behest of complainant, the petitioner and the other co- accused were found innocent. The injury attributed to the petitioner is not on the vital part of the body. The injuries sustained at the most fell under provision of Section 337-F(2) P.P.C: and did not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Afsar vs. The State (1994 S.C.M.R. 2051) wherein the bail was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the injury was not on the vital part of the body. Similarly reliance is placed on Amanullah vs. State (PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lahore) 47) wherein learned Judge in Chamber granted bail holding that injury on non-vital part of the body was of much relevance to determine the intention or knowledge of accused as envisaged by Section 324 PPC. The precedent quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner fully supported his contention. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioner class for further probe, within the meaning of subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last 9 months. He cannot be retained in custody indefinitely as the trial has not commenced so far.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.