MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Ali in relation to case F.I.R. No. 17 registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the medical opinion, police findings of innocence, cross-version of the incident, and the nature of the injury attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the common intention required further inquiry, particularly as a Medical Board opined that fabrication could not be ruled out, the police found the petitioner innocent, and a cross-F.I.R. existed regarding injuries suffered by the accused party. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the police find an accused innocent, a Medical Board notes the possibility of fabrication, and a cross-case discloses a plausible plea of self-defense or further inquiry into common intention and murderous assault provisions, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting bail.
- Whether the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code calls for further inquiry when police find the accused innocent?
- Does an opinion by a Medical Board that fabrication of injury cannot be ruled out constitute grounds for post-arrest bail?
- Whether the existence of a cross-F.I.R. regarding injuries sustained by the accused party supports a case for further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Muhammad Ali son of Allah Mehar seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,17 dated 18-2-2004 registered at Police Station Mitha Tiwana, District Khushab, for offences under sections 324/34, P.P.C.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded by the complainant Muhammad Shahid son of Muhammad Saleem was that he was a resident of Chak No,47 M.B. And was visiting his relations at Chak No,4 TDA. To attend a wedding party; around 9 a.m. When he was present at his relative Abdullah's place he heard a lalkara and immediately thereafter Muhammad Ali petitioner along with his co- accused Iftikhar son of Hassan Muhammad, Nadeem son of Mustafa all residents of the said Chak No,4 TDA while armed with firearms reached there; as soon as he came out of the door , on hearing the noise Muhammad Ali petitioner fired with his gun which hit him on the front side below the neck; he fell down whereafter Nadeem co-accused made a straight fire at him, however, the said fire hit Abdul Sattar at his Shalwar, on his hue and cry witnesses arrived there who witnessed the occurrence and beseeched the accused persons to stop firing. According to the complainant the motive was that in the morning at about 7-30 a.m. The complainant had a quarrel with the accused persons in which Muhammad Anwar son of. Allah Mehr had been injured. According to him it was on this grudge that the murderous assault had been launched. Accordingly the instant case was recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested immediately after the occurrence and is in custody ever since. His petition for post arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Session Judge, Khushab who turned down the same vide order dated 21-6-2004. Hence the instant petition.
4. I have heard Mr. M.A. Zafar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sheikh Khursheed Iqbal, the learned counsel for the State and have also carefully examined the record brought by Sheikh Asmatullah A.S.-I.
5. It has been observed that the gunshot injury suffered by the injured was a wound of entrance 1/2 c.m.x1/2 c.m. In size on right lower side of neck. The said injury had been declared to be falling under Section 337-F(i), .P.P. C . Entailing punishment of one year. It is also transpired from the perusal of the record that on the petitioner's application a Medical Board was assembled at District Headquarters Hospital Khushab, which had examined Muhammad Shahid injured and opined that the possibility of fabrication could not be ruled out. The perusal of the record also reveals that the police had found the petitioner to be innocent and recommendation for his discharge was in the pipeline. The District Police Officer had also agreed with the opinion of innocence recorded by the D.S.P. It has also been noticed that F.I.R. No,18 had been recorded at the instance of the accused party wherein Muhammad Anwar son of Allah Mehr a real brother of the petitioner had suffered as many as 13 injuries by sharp and blunt edged weapons. The plea of the petitioner that in fact he and his A companions had been attacked but the police instead of registering their case choose to register F.I.R. No,17 against them cannot be lightly brushed aside. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case especially keeping in view the damage attributed to the petitioner altough he was armed with a lethal firearm, the applicability of section 324 P.P.C. As also his common intention in my opinion, call for further inquiry.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.