BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE
This bail petition arises from an FIR registered under Section 337-A(3) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations that the petitioner inflicted injuries on the informant using a 'Trangri' following a dispute over land ownership. The petitioner sought post-arrest bail, contending that the FIR was a retaliatory measure by the informant, who is the petitioner's brother, to facilitate the illegal occupation of their sister's land. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances and the nature of the evidence. The Court held that the case fell within the domain of 'further inquiry' due to the questionable motive behind the FIR, the delay in the medical report regarding the nasal fracture, and the fact that the investigation was complete with the challan submitted. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration was unnecessary. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is clouded by significant doubt regarding the motive and the medical evidence, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does a significant delay in the medical declaration of an injury create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of bail?
- Can a case be considered one of 'further inquiry' when the motive for the FIR appears to be a civil land dispute between family members?
- Is the completion of the investigation and submission of the challan a relevant factor in determining the necessity of continued pre-trial detention?
- Section 337-A(3), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. HAKIM ALI, .1 . - Muhammad Ashraf son of Wali Muhammad got an F.I.R. No,262 of 2004, registered on 7-8-2004 with Police Station Fatehpur, District Layyah on 1-8-2004. The F.I.R. Was got registered under section 337-A(3), P.P.C. The petitioner who was arrested in that case, had applied for bail after arrest before the learned Judicial Magistrate but remained unsuccessful on 3-9-2004.
In another attempt to get concession of bail from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, the petitioner had also failed on 30-9-2004, hence this petition.
2. Allegation against the petitioner as narrated in the above mentioned F.I.R. Is that at about 11-00 a.m. Bashir Ahmad, petitioner had reached at the land owned by the informant and used abusive language and inflicted two blows with "Trangri" that had hit the informant on his head, face and nose. The occurrance was allegedly witnessed by one Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Akram. The motive stated in the F.I.R. Was that Bashit Ahmad wanted to forcibly evict the informant from the land of Mst. Asia Bibi, sister of the informant. So he had committed the above noted offence.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated that Muhammad Ashraf, the informant is the real brother of the petitioner and is holding the possession of land forcibly as against the will and consent of Mst. Asia the real sister. The informant has got this false F.I.R. After obtaining fictitious/fake report from the doctor. Otherwise no such injuries were caused to the informant. He has further argued that informant is a hardened criminal, against whom so many cases were registered with Police Station Fatehpur, as well as with Karor Lal Essan.
4. Opposing the bail, learned counsel for the State has stated that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any bail concession.
5. After considering the arguments and the perusal of the record, I have noted that F.I.R. Itself has manifested the actual motivating force behind its registration. Muhammad Ashraf, the informant has himself in the F.I.R. That Bashir Ahmad, the accused, wanted to get forcible possession of land of his sister Mst. Asia and due to this, the accused had inflicted blows to him after using abusive language. In fact, this version has given an impression that the bone of contention was that piece of land which owned by the sister of the informant and the accused, The learned counsel has pointed out that the informant, in fact, wanted to grab this land, for which resistance was being put by the accused. Considering the accused an obstacle in his way fulfil his design, the informant had lodged this false report so as to entangle the petitioner in a criminal case and to deter and refrain the accused from fighting the case of his sister. This aspect of the case as has been narrated and presented by the learned counsel requires further thorough probe. The declaration of fracture of nasal bone by the Medical Officer is still to be examined and has to be proved through evidence by the prosecution because, the delay of about 6/7 days occurring in the declaration of nasal fracture has somewhat created doubt. The petitioner is in jail since 8-8-2004 and is not required by the police any more. Report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Has already been submitted in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate. The informant and accused are real brothers and the possibility to patch up their differences can be hopefully seen due to their close relationship. In these above noted circumstances the case of the petitioner having fallen within the domain of further inquiry, the petitioner is accordingly admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.