Zafar And Other vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, Zafar and others, who were charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of firearm use and physical assault, the medical evidence, and the delay in lodging the FIR. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, as the allegations were prima facie supported by medical evidence, including firearm injuries and a fracture caused by a danda blow. The court determined that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the petitioners had actively participated in the occurrence. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the petitioners failed to establish a case for further inquiry or grounds for relief, despite arguments regarding the non-vital nature of the injury and the delay in reporting the incident.
- Does an injury caused to a non-vital part of the body automatically exempt an offence from the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail permissible when the allegations are prima facie supported by medical evidence?
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR, by itself, entitle an accused to bail in a case involving serious injuries?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- Through this application under section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek bail after arrest in case FJR No. 244 dated" 3.10.2005, registered under sections 324/34 PPC at Police Station Bhera District Sargodha on the statement of Muhammad Afzal.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioners as per contents of the FIR is that Zafar petitioner and Arshad armed with 30 bore pistols while Mukhtar petitioner armed with sota alongwith co-accused who were also armed with sotas made murderous assault upon Imran, Mubashir and Ikram injured persons. Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner gave repeated danda blows to injured persons while Zafar petitioner made a fire shot which hit on the lower part of left leg of Imran, hence this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Zafar petitioner had not repeated the fire and offence under section 324 PPC is not made out as the injury is on the non vital part; that the Medical Board had reexamined Imran and come to the conclusion that the injury could be as a result of self infliction; that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last four months but the trial had not yet commenced; that there is delay in lodging the FIR as the occurrence had taken place on 2.10.2005 at 10.00 p.m. While the matter was reported on 3.10.2005 at 8.20 a.m. And the said delay had not been sufficiently explained and the petitioners may be granted bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State have opposed this bail application.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties . And also perused the record carefully.
6. According to the complainant, Zafar petitioner No. 1 while armed With pistol 30 bore had fired hitting Imran on the lower part of his left leg. The said injury was noted down by the Medical Officer at the time of medical examination of Imran having been caused with firearm. Similarly, Mukhtar petitioner No. 2 while armed with danda had caused injury to Imran on the back of his head besides causing injuries to Mubashir and Ikram on the different parts of their body. One of the injury oh the head of Ikram PW attributed to Mukhtar petitioner No. 2 has resulted into fracture of bone.
Both the accused/petitioners had actively participated in the occurrence as per allegations levelled against them which prima facie are supported by the medical evidence. The offences under sections 324 and 337-A(iii) PPG are prima facie attracted to the present case which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioners have failed to make out a case of further inquiry. Hence, this application having no merits is dismissed.