MADAD KHAN- vs THE STATE
This bail application was filed by the petitioner, Madad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the injuries, the recovery of the weapon, and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that while the injury was on a non-vital part of the body (the right elbow), the petitioner had allegedly fired multiple shots, suggesting a potential intent to kill. Furthermore, the weapon of offense was recovered from the petitioner. Although the trial had been pending for nearly one year, the Court determined that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of bail at this stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the recovery of the weapon is established and the accused is alleged to have fired multiple shots, the mere fact that the injury occurred on a non-vital part does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely because the injury caused was on a non-vital part of the body?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offense influence the court's decision on a bail application?
- Can a bail petition be dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.-- The petitioner filed this bail application in F.I.R. No,25 of 2005, dated 4-2-2005, under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Atta Shaheed District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., 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 from 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 affected from him. According to the record, the age of the petitioner is 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.
Cited by 1 case
- NASEER vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 2889