MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of four applicants challaned under sections 302, 324, 337/A(i), 337/F(i), 504, 114, 147, 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code in Crime No. 65 of 2005. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving counter versions and conflicting medical reports. The Sindh High Court held that since the case involves counter versions where both parties registered cases against each other, and the applicants did not cause any fatal injuries to the complainant party, the applicants made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that bail is appropriately granted when a criminal matter presents a counter version with cross-cases and the injuries attributed to the accused are either non-fatal or contradicted by the medical evidence.
- Are applicants entitled to post-arrest bail in a case involving counter versions and cross-cases?
- Does a discrepancy between medical reports and ocular allegations regarding the nature of weapons used justify granting bail?
- Whether the absence of fatal injuries attributed to the accused warrants the concession of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337/A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337/F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---This bail, application has been filed on behalf of four applicants, who have been challaned under sections 302, 324, 337/A(i), 337/F(i), 504, 114, 147, 148, 149 P.P.C., in Crime No,65 of 2005.
2. ' As per F.I.R. On 4-5-2005 complainant Gada Hussain stated that they have some quarrel with one Abdul Wahab on volleyball game. On which Abdul Wahab Mehessar and others were annoyed and on 5-5-2005 when complainant was sitting outside a shop along with his brother and nephew, applicants and other accused persons came there along with pistol and dandas and attacked them. The applicant No,1 caused sharp side hatchet blow to Ghulam Murtaza and applicant No,3 caused pistol blow to Waheed Ali on his back. In the F.I.R. The complainant party has nominated nine persons.
3. ' Mr. Mohammad Ayaz Soomro, learned Advocate for the applicants has argued that it is a case of counter versions and applicants' party has also lodged F.I.R. And the case has been registered against the complainant party (Crime No,66 of 2005) in which eight accused persons have been granted bail. It is contended by learned Advocate for the applicants that general allegations have been levelled against applicants.
4. ' Mr. Bhutto learned State Counsel, stated that both the parties received injuries and from the medical report it appears that Ghulam Murtaza received injury from hard blunt weapons, whereas allegation against him in the F.I.R. Is that applicants had caused hatchet blow to him, which makes the case of two versions.
5. No allegation has been levelled against applicants Nos.3 and 4. The allegation against Badaruddin, applicant No,2 is that he caused pistol blow to Abdul Wahab on his back and injury is not fatal according to Medical report.
6. ' It is the case of counter version, both the parties have registered case against each other. The applicants have not caused any fatal injury to complainant party. The applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing sureties in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) each and P.R.Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.