Muhammad Nadeem vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Nadeem in case FIR No. 232 of 2005 registered at Police Station Shah Gharib, District Narowal, under Sections 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the firearm injury attributed to him was non-fatal and sustained on a non-vital part of the complainant's body. The Lahore High Court held that the specific circumstances of the assault and the nature of the injury called for further inquiry into the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was consequently allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds.
- Whether an injury inflicted on a non-vital part of the body attracts further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the offence of attempt to murder?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the accused deliberately avoids causing fatal damage to the victim?
- Does the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant a deeper probe at the bail stage given specific weapon use and injury patterns?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER M. BILAL KHAN, J. - Muhammad Nadeem son of Khurshid Ahmad, the petitioner, seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No! 232/2005, registered at Police Station, Shah Gharib, District Narowal, for offences under Sections 324, 109/34, P.P.C.
The allegation in the FIR as narrated by the complainant, was that the, petitioner who was holding a pistols and his unknown co-accused who was armed with two pistols assaulted the complainant; one shot fired by the petitioner hit on the calf of his left leg and went through and through; the unknown co-accused fired with his pistols, however, the bullets only hit the wearing apparel of the complainant and Ehsan-ul-Haq his companion; the complainant also fired in his defence with his pistol causing the assailants to run away. The motive according to the complainant was the previous enmity between the parties. Resultantly the instant FIR had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2005 and is in custody ever since. His application for post- arrest ball was turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shakargarh, District Narowal, vide order dated 03.02.2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Hassan Akhtar Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Shahid Nasim, the learned State counsel and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Baqir, S.I.
5. A plain look at the FIR would show that the petitioner and his co-accused and taken pains to ensure that no fatal damage was caused to the victim. The fire shot attributed to the petitioner had hit the left calf of the complainant whereas the fire shots made by the unknown accused person had only pierced through the clothing of the complainant and his companion, In view of the allegation and the damage allegedly caused by the petitioner/accused the applicability of section 324, P.P.G, calls for further probe within the meanings of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. ,
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to 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 the learned Trial Court.