Shafqat vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Shafqat, who is charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged commission of Qatl-i-Amd. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused, Muhammad Akram, had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner argued that his case was identical to that of the co-accused. The Court, upon reviewing the medical evidence, distinguished the petitioner's case from that of the co-accused. It noted that while the injury attributed to the co-accused was an exit wound, the injury attributed to the petitioner was an entry wound that contributed to the deceased's death. Consequently, the Court held that the principle of consistency did not apply, as the petitioner's specific role was supported by the medical record. The Court affirmed that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and dismissed the bail petition.
- Does the principle of consistency apply to bail applications when the medical evidence distinguishes the roles of co-accused?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail application be denied if the injury attributed to the accused is supported by the medical evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. - Through the application under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Shafqat (Petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No. 760-2004, dated 17.12.2004, registered under Sections 302, 148/149, PPC at Police Station Khatala Sheikhan, District Mandi Baha-u<-Din on the statement of Muhammad Hayat, the complainant.
2. The brief allegation against the, petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R, is that on 17.12.2004 at about 8.30 a.m. He alongwith other co-accused-while armed with fire-arms had committed the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Abbas, nephew of the complainant..
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that case of the present petitioner is at par with the' case of Muhammad Akram (co-accused), who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 3237-B/2006; 'that the witnesses had stated that they reached the spot after hearing the voice of firing and it seems that they were not present at the spot and they had not seen the occurrence; that the petitioner is cousin of the main accused, who is still at large and there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this bail petition on the ground that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Muhammad Akram, who has been granted bail by this Court; that Irshad co-accused is still fugitive from law; that injury attributed to Muhammad Akram (co-accused), was declared exit wound; that the petitioner is involved in a case falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C, and to his extent medical evidence fully supported the ocular account.
5. The learned counsel for the State has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution.
7. The occurrence in the present had been taken place at 8.30 a.m. On 17.12.2004 and F.I.R, was got lodged on the same day at 11.30 a.m. By the complainant stating therein that the petitioner had fired on Muhammad Abbas (deceased) hitting on his right arm. According to the postmortem examination, there are two injuries caused on the right arm of the deceased. Injury No. 4 is entry wound, which was attributed to the petitioner and according to the postmortem examination, it had contributed-to death of the deceased with other injuries. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Muhammad Akram, as injury attributed to him was declared exit wound by the Doctor during the post-mortem examination of the deceased. The petitioner cannot be released on bail on the. Principle of consistency as the injury attributed to him is borne out from the record. The petitioner is involved in a case falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner cannot be given benefit due to the a section of the co-accused Irshad, who is also his counsel . I do not find it a fit case for the grant of bail, which is dismissed.