BAHADUR SAID vs THE STATE and another
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was accused in an FIR registered under Sections 324, 34, and other provisions 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 a matter requiring further inquiry. The Peshawar High Court held that since the injury was on a non-vital part, no fracture was caused, and the question of intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd needed determination at trial, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of medical evidence indicating injuries on non-vital parts without fractures can make out a case for further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether bail should be granted when the firearm injury attributed to the accused is on a non-vital part of the body without any bone fracture?
- Does an injury on a non-vital part without fracture create a tentative doubt regarding the intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be determined at the bail stage without recording evidence of the complainant and prosecution witnesses?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- A case F.I.R. No,76 under sections 324/37/447-F(iii)/34, P.P.C. 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 witnessed 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 v.
The State 1996 PCr.LJ 1881, Shabbir and another v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 112, Saleem Khan v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 140 and Muhammad Aslam v. The State 1996 PCr.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 F.I.R. The question of applicability of section 324, P.P.C. Is still to be determined at trial after examination of complainant and P.Ws.
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.
Cited by 4 cases
- Tariq vs State & 1 another 2017 PHC 582
- TARIQ vs The STATE and another 2018 YLR 578
- PINNU KHAN and anothers vs ISHTIAQ and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 1781
- GHULAM FARID vs SIFATULLAH and another 2009 YLR 280