MASHOOQ and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal case where the applicants sought pre-arrest bail in connection with charges involving assault, hatchet injuries, and danda blows following a dispute over a monetary settlement. The core legal question is whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the FIR, supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts. The court held that sufficient incriminating material connected the first applicant, Mashooq, to the commission of the offence, particularly regarding head injuries corresponding to a serious hurt category, thereby justifying the rejection of his pre-arrest bail. Conversely, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for the second applicant, Mehboob, noting that the allegations against him involved a danda blow with no specific injury and that the resulting injuries fell under a bailable category. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated in the FIR with active involvement supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when specifically nominated in the FIR with corroborating medical evidence?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed for an accused whose attributed role involves bailable injuries?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--- The applicants/accused were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 22nd May, 2006.
2. ' The case of the prosecution as per the version of the complainant appears to be that on 2-5-2006 while the complainant was coming to his house at about 10-00 p.m. He saw accused Ghulam Nabi, Mashooq and Mehboob all three brothers and sons of Ganwar. Ghulam Nabi was armed with pistol, Mashooq with hatchet and Mehboob had Danda. Ghulam Nabi threatened him to stop failing he will be killed and further asked him not to demand money from the accused persons for the Faisla given in his favor, on account of goat theft. The complainant refused and stated that since it is a Faisla which, has been given against them therefore, he will demand the money. On this Ghulam Nabi fired but the complainant laid down on the ground and was not hit, upon his falling on ground accused Mashooq caused injuries on his head and other parts of the body with blunt side of hatchet. Whereas accused Mehboob also hit blow to him with Danda. On his cries he was saved by the neighbours.
3. ' It appears that Ghulam Nabi was arrested and was granted bail by the trial Court influenced from the order, dated 22nd May, 2006, whereby these two applicants were granted interim pre-arrest bail and further that the case against him was one of ineffective firing.
4. ' The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is that in all there are 10 injuries on the body of the complainant and it is yet to be ascertained which of the accused has caused which injury, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry and the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail.
5. ' On the other hand learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the ground that the accused persons have been nominated in the F.I.R. With specific roles and the injuries sustained by the accused as narrated in the first information report are duly supported with the medical report which reflects two lacerated injuries on head as narrated in the F.I.R. Caused by Mashooq with blunt side of the hatchet and four witnesses have duly supported the incident and one of the injuries caused on the head as evident from the medical certificate is Shajjah-i-Mudihah falls under section 337-A(ii) and carries punishment of five years, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of the bail.
6. ' I have considered the contentions of the respective counsel and have perused the record as well as the medical certificate.
7. ' It has been clearly stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. That the head injuries were caused by Mashooq which have been duly supported by the medical certificate as well as statements of the witnesses, sufficient incriminating material connecting the accused with commission of alleged offence is available on record. Therefore, in my A view he is not entitled to the concession of pre- arrest bail and his application for pre-arrest bail is rejected. He is present in Court and has been taken in custody. Office is directed to remand him to judicial custody. The allegations against Mehboob are of hitting blow with Danda with no specific injury on the body even otherwise the rest of the blows in accordance with the medical report are classified as Shajjah-i-Khafifah an offence which is bailable, therefore, pre-arrest bail granted to Mehboob is confirmed. Application stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- MEER HASSAN Versus State 2023 YLRN 84