Madad Khan vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was accused in FIR No. 25/05 under Section 324 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly firing a pistol at the complainant, causing injury to his right elbow. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injury, the recovery of the weapon, and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that while the injury was to a non-vital part of the body, the petitioner's act of repeating fire shots indicated a potential intention to kill, which could not be ruled out at the bail stage. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon of offense weighed against the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, noting the seriousness of the allegations, but issued a mandatory direction to the Trial Court to conclude the trial within eight weeks, balancing the petitioner's right to a speedy trial with the gravity of the offense.
- Does the firing of multiple shots, even if only one hits a non-vital body part, preclude a finding of no intention to kill at the bail stage?
- Can a bail petition be dismissed while simultaneously directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
- Is the recovery of the weapon of offense a significant factor in denying post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER The petitioner filed this bail application in FIR No. 25/05, dated 4.2.2005, under section 324 and 34 PPC at P.S. Atta Shaheed, district Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he made a fire with pistol which hit on the right elbow of the complainant. He repeated 2/3 fires but the complainant escaped the subsequent fires.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only one fire hit the complainant which is on non vital part of the body. He submits that age of the petitioner at the time of occurrence was 16 years and 9 months. He submits that no empty of pistol was recovered form the scene of occurrence and the petitioner is already behind the bars for nearly one year:
4. Nobody is present on behalf of the State. However, the police official who brought record assisted the Court in the-perusal of the same. According to the record, the petitioner was arrested on 15.2.2005. Recovery of a pistol has been effected from in According to the record, the age of the petitioner 21/22 years.
5. I have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. .
6. It is true that a fire shot by the petitioner caused injuries on the right elbow of the complainant but it cannot be ignored that he repeated fires 2/3 times, luckily subsequent fires missed their target. Therefore, it cannot be safely concluded at this stage and he did not have intention to kill.
Similarly, the weapon of offence has also been recovered. The single person has been named responsible of causing injury to the complainant. On the other hand, nearly one year has passed but the trial has not concluded.
7. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this petition is dismissed with a direction that Trial Court must conclude the trial within eight weeks after receiving this order. The office is directed to Convey these orders to the Trial Court concerned.