MUHAMMAD AKBAR alias GHULAM AKBAR vs STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who is accused in an FIR registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing a firearm injury to the complainant's head. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including the non-natural status of eyewitnesses, the failure of the trial court to conclude the trial within a previously stipulated timeframe, the duration of his incarceration, and the alleged innocence of co-accused. The Court rejected these contentions, noting that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR with a defined role and that the medical evidence corroborated the ocular account. Crucially, the Court held that bail cannot be granted solely on the ground of the trial's failure to conclude within a stipulated period, as the statutory provisions previously guaranteeing such rights are no longer in force. Emphasizing that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause and that the weapon used and injury location indicate criminal intent, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the request for bail.
- Can bail be granted solely on the ground that the trial was not concluded within a stipulated time period?
- Does the use of a firearm and the location of the injury on the victim's head indicate the intention of the accused?
- Is a case involving a specific role in a firearm injury falling within the prohibitory clause eligible for bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in the case, FIR No 144 dated 17.5.2005 under Section 324/34 of PPC registered with Police Station Khangarh District Muzaffar Garh.
2. Precisely the allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the fired at the complainant with a carbine hitting his head.
3. In support of this application the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged eye-witnesses being the residents of another village are not natural witnesses of this occurrence; that despite the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 989-B of 2006 the trial Court has failed to conclude the trial within the prescribed period of four months; that the petitioner has been languishing in jail for a period of one year and three months; that empty shell was not recovered from the spot and that two of the co- accused of the petitioner has been found innocent, therefore, the case of the petitioner also requires further inquiry. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance upon cases reported as Muhammad Yaqoob vs. The State (PLJ 2005 Criminal Cases Lahore 428), Azhar Ali vs. State (PLJ 2001 Crl. Cases (Lahore) 1227) and 1999 SCM R 2147.
4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties I have observed that the case, law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and even otherwise it is established law that each case has to be decided keeping in view particular facts of said case. As far as case of Muhammad Aslam vs. The State (1999 SCMR 214) is concerned it related to a case which was governed by the provisions guaranteeing the right of bail on the ground of expiry of statutory period. Said provisions are no more available on the statutory books, therefore, bail cannot be granted simply on the ground that the trial has not been concluded within the stipulated time as directed by this Court.
5. The petitioner is duly named in the FIR with a specific role. He had caused fire-arm injury on the head of the injured P.W. who survived just by sheer luck. The medico legal certificate duly supports the ocular version. The intention of any accused is always judged by considering the weapon of offence used by the offender, and the seat of injuries received by the injured or deceased. Without delving deeper into the facts of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party, it is observed that the .petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. Injured P.W. is duly corroborating the version given in the F.I.R. No case for bail is made out. Consequently this petition is found to be meritless and is dismissed.