MAQBOOL AHMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three petitioners facing charges under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Basti Malook. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries and the evidence presented. The Court held that while the case against petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 warranted bail, the case against petitioner No. 3 did not. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were simple in nature and the offenses were punishable by less than ten years imprisonment, making bail appropriate. Conversely, petitioner No. 3 was alleged to have caused firearm injuries resulting in prolonged hospitalization and disability, demonstrating a clear intent to cause grievous hurt. Consequently, the Court granted bail to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 subject to surety bonds, while dismissing the bail application for petitioner No. 3, emphasizing the severity of the firearm injury and the prima facie evidence of intent.
- Whether an accused charged with an offense punishable by less than ten years is entitled to bail as a rule?
- Does the use of a firearm with intent to cause grievous hurt preclude the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted to some co-accused while being denied to others based on the specific nature of their individual acts?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioner seek bail in case F.I.R. No, 118/05 dated 1-5-2005 under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L2, P.P.C. Registered with P.S. Basti Malook on the complaint of Muhammad Sharif son of Ghulam Hussain.
2. It is contended that case against the petitioners has been falsely registered by the complainant after getting a false medical certificate; the alleged injuries on the persons of the injured are simple in nature; the ingredients of section 324, P.P.C. Are missing in the present case; it could only be determined after recording evidence whether it is case of sections 337-A(i) or 337-F,(i); since even in this view of the matter the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry and is covered by section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Entitling them to be released on bail. The medical evidence is in conflict with ocular occurrence in the present case. No fire-arm weapon was recovered from the petitioners.
The petitioners are in judicial lock up and are no more required for the purpose of investigation. It is further argued that grant of bail in offence punishable with imprisonment for less than 10 years is a rule and refusal is an exception..
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the bail application. It is contended that the injured remained in the hospital for treatment for a period of two months and till today he is material on the record prima facie provisions of Section 324, Cr.P.C. Are made out which carries punishment falling under Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The injured person received 12 fire arm as well as blunt weapon injuries on different parts of his body. Petitioner No,3 Murad Ali fired at the complainant which hit him on the thigh of left leg, shin and on elbow of right arm.
Petitioner No,1 caused injury on the left side of head of the complainant with his hatchet, whereas, petitioner No,2 Sabir Ali, though armed with a repeater, caused injuries with its back on the different parts of the body of the injured complainant. The medico-legal report corroborates the ocular version of the complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant and caused by the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 were declared to be, simple in nature except the injury caused by petitioner No,3 said to have been caused with fire-arm weapon was kept under observation. Petitioner No,2 though armed with fire arm weapon did not cause any injury with fire-arm weapon but used the blunt side of the repeater and caused injury on the body, of the complainant.
Keeping in view the nature of the offences committed by petitioners Nos.1 and 2 which are punishable for imprisonment of A less than 10 years and are not covered by Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C.
This bail petition is accepted to their extent and they are admitted to bail subject to furnishing their bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. So far as the case of the petitioner No,3 is concerned, he caused fire arm injury which hit on different parts of the body of the complainant who remained under treatment in the hospital for about B two months and is unable to walk properly. The intention by firing with fire-arm weapon 'clearly depicts was to cause grievous hurt to the complainant. Hence to the extent of petitioner No,3 Murad Ali, bail petition is dismissed.