Hayat Ullah Khan And Another vs The State
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 210/2005 registered under sections 324, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mochh, District Mianwali, for allegedly launching an attack and causing firearm injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail in light of contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the circumstances of the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be allowed as the ocular account stood contradicted by the medico-legal report, which showed only one entry wound and two exit wounds despite allegations of multiple distinct fires by different accused persons, and because a co-accused was found innocent during investigation while no crime empties were recovered from the spot to connect the recovered weapons to the crime. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between ocular testimony and medical evidence, and forensic corroboration is lacking, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether contradiction between ocular account and medical evidence brings a criminal case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Does the absence of crime empties recovered from the spot weaken the prosecution's case regarding the use of recovered weapons at the stage of bail?
- Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when a co-accused attributed with a similar role is declared innocent during the police investigation?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J. - Petitioners seek post-arrest-bail in case FIR No. 210/2005, dated 01.11.2005 for the offence under sections 324/148/149/34, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Mochh, District Mianwali.
2. In.- brief the story of the prosecution case as penned in the FIR is that on 01.11.2005 at 9.45 a.m., both the petitioners alongwith other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention launched attack and caused injuries to Ameer Abdullah Khan with the intention to commit his murder. Allegedly Muhammad Tariq co-accused of the petitioner made fire which hit Ameer Abdullah Khan on the left leg near the knee, the second fire made by Hayat Ullah Khan hit Ameer Abdullah Khan on the left leg near the knee.. Similarly third fire made by Aamir Khan hit Ameer Abdullah Khan on the left leg near the knee. Thereafter all the accused persons decamped from the scene of crime while making indiscriminate firing.
During the investigation Hayat Ullah Khan petitioner was arrested on 16.01.2006 and Aamer Khan petitioner was arrested on 30.01.2006. Their application for the grant of post-arrest bail was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide dated 21.04.2006, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that though both the petitioners are named in the FIR with the specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to Ameer Abdullah Khan PW and allegedly fires made by them bit Ameer Abdul Khan on the left leg near the knee, similarly, bare perusal of FIR also reveals that co-accused of the 'petitioners namely Muhammad Tariq had also caused fire-arm injury to the said Ameer Abdullah Khan (PW) on the same part of his body but on the other hand the medico-Legal report of Ameer Abdullah Khan shows that he had only one entry wound and two exit wounds on the left leg. In this view of the matter ocular account stands contradicted by the medical evidence. Similarly during the investigation co-accused Muhammad Tariq who also allegedly had caused injury to Ameer Abdullah Khan was found innocent and not arrested by the police. The file of this case also reveals that during the investigation fire-arms were recovered from the petitioners but admittedly no empty was recovered from the spot by the agency and thus there is no evidence on the record to say that the said weapons were ever used during the occurrence.
Prima facie the said facts are sufficient to bring the case of the petitioners within the fold of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of bail. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) each with one surety each in the. Like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.