BAHADUR SAID vs STATE and another
The petitioner filed an application under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 337-F(3), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing a firearm injury to the complainant over a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the firearm injury was attributed to a non-vital part of the body without bone fracture, making the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to further inquiry at trial. The Peshawar High Court held that since the injury was on a non-vital part, no fracture was caused, and the presence of intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd required determination during the trial, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of medical evidence regarding injuries on non-vital parts without fractures can make out a case for further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when a firearm injury is attributed to a non-vital part of the body without causing any bone fracture?
- Does the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require further determination at trial when intent to cause death is prima facie questionable?
- Can tentative assessment of medical evidence favor the grant of bail in criminal cases?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(3), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
A case FIR No. 76 under Sections 324/37/447-F (3)/34 PPC was registered against Bahadur Said, petitioner and his brother Ummat Khan on 19.4.2007 at Police Station, Gandidar, Dir Upper. The petitioner was accused of having, on the morning of 19.4.2007 at 7.30, at a place known as `Lajar Koom' caused fire-arm injury on the right leg below the right knee joint to the complainant Mubarak Jan, with Kalashnikov, Ashrafuddin, Ajab Khan and Sherin Gul were shown to have witnesses the occurrence. A dispute over land was stated to be the motive leading to the incident.
2. The petitioner has filed instant application under Section 497 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail, on refusal of the same by the forums below i.e. Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Dir Upper, vide orders dated 30.4.2007 and 21.5.2007 respectively.
3. Main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body of the complainant, moreover, no fracture or dislocation of the bone is caused and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of crime. Reliance has been placed on Muhammad Akram vs. The State (1996 P.Cr. LJ 1881), Shabbir and another vs. The State (1997 P.Cr. LJ 112), Saleem Khan vs. The State (1999 P.Cr. LJ 140) and Muhammad Aslam vs. The State (1996 P.Cr. LJ 1650).
4. Conversely, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have been repudiated by Malik Manzoor Hussain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State on the ground that the petitioner stands directly nominated in the promptly lodged report for the commission of offence; that effective role of firing has been attributed to the petitioner and that the medical evidence and witnesses of the spot fully support the charge, thus bail has been refused to the petitioner for sound and cogent reasons.
5. The petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 9.4.2007. The investigation of the case is almost complete and challan is likely to be submitted in Court in near future. The injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body of the complainant, moreover, no fracture or dislocation of the bone is caused. It is yet to be seen if the petitioner intended to kill the victim. It also prima facie shows lack of his intention to cause Qatl-e-Amd'. Under the circumstances of the case and facts, as mentioned in the FIR the question of applicability of Section 324 FPC is still to be determined at trial after, examination, of complainant and PWs.
6. This application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail, in case he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local and men of means.
7. The above findings are of tentative nature and the trial Court need not be influenced in any way.
The trial Court may reach its own conclusion after recording evidence in the case.