ZAFAR and otherss vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, Zafar and others, in a criminal case registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a murderous assault. The petitioners sought bail on grounds including the non-vital location of the injury, allegations of self-infliction supported by a medical board, delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the duration of their incarceration without commencement of trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in light of the allegations and medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, finding that the allegations of active participation were supported by medical evidence, including a fracture caused by one of the petitioners. The Court determined that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that the petitioners failed to establish a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed on merits.
- Does an injury caused by a firearm to a non-vital part of the body automatically exclude the application of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the existence of a medical report suggesting self-infliction of injuries is sufficient to grant bail in a case involving a murderous assault?
- Do offences under sections 324 and 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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 F.I.R. No,244 dated 3-10-2005, registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Bhera District Sargodha on the statement of Muhammad Afzal.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioners as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that Zafar petitioner and Arshad armed with .30-bore pistols while Mukhtar petitioner armed with Sota along with 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, P.P.C. Is not made out as the injury is on the non-vital part; that the Medical Board had re-examined 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 F.I.R. 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 fire-arm. 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 injuries on the head of Ikram P.W. 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), P.P.C. 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 on merits is dismissed.