MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Akhtar, who was charged under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with F.I.R. No. 287 of 2003. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of specific violence attributed to him in the F.I.R. and the state of the medical evidence. The Court observed that while the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. for inflicting a blow, the medical evidence was inconclusive, as the medical officer had opined on a fracture without radiological confirmation, and the injured party was not hospitalized. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated for two months, and the trial had not yet commenced. The Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that where medical evidence is inconclusive and the trial is delayed, a case for further inquiry is made out.
- Does an inconclusive medical report regarding a fracture justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial has not yet commenced and the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Can bail be granted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the medical officer provides an opinion on a fracture without radiological support?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,287 of 2003 dated 20-11-2003 registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Alpa District Multan.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case due to previous enmity; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioner; that the F.I.R. Is belied by the medical evidence; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about two months being no more required by the police for further investigation and the trial against him has still been commenced.
3. On the contrary learned State Counsel opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific part of violence, therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
5. Record reveals that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific part of violence to the effect that he allegedly inflicted a hard blow to Zahoor Ahmad injured yet the fact remains that as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the medical officer at the time of examination of injured has advised for X-ray but he has also given an opinion regarding the fracture without referring to the Radiologist. He has further went on arguing that the injured has not been admitted in the hospital. The petitioner is stated to be behind the bars for the last about two months being no more required by the police for further investigation and the trial against him has still not been commenced. In view of the above discussion, there are sufficient reasons to believe that case of the petitioner needs further inquiry into his guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is therefore, held entitled for the concession of 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 learned trial Court.