REHMAN and 2 otherss vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, in respect of Crime No. 5 of 2005 registered at Police Station Mounder. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail when the injuries attributed to them are simple in nature, located on non-vital parts of the body, and require further inquiry into the reconciliation of ocular and medical evidence. The court held that the applicants made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and admitted them to bail. The key principle laid down is that where injuries attributed to accused persons are simple and not on vital parts, and the case calls for further inquiry into discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence, bail should be granted as a matter of judicial discretion.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the injuries attributed to him are simple in nature and located on non-vital parts of the body?
- Does discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence warrant further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.---This bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Has been filed against the order, dated 19-7-2006 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Dadu in respect of Crime No,5 of 2005 registered at Police Station Mounder.
2. ' Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that the applicants along with 5 other co- accused attacked the complainant and his companions with revolvers, hatchet and iron bars and injured them seriously. The allegations against applicant No,1 Rahim is that he struck the complainant with iron bar on his head whereas the allegation against applicant No,2 Ghulam Mustafa is that he inflicted backside hatchet blow on the muscle of the left arm of the complainant.
3. No common intention or common object has been alleged.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicants argued that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. Are to be believed it is prima facie clear that injuries attributed to applicants are simple in nature and the injuries attributed to applicant No, 2 are not on vital parts of the body of the complainant. He further argued that further inquiry is needed todetermine the exact nature of the injuries and reconcile the discrepancies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. He further submitted that the case does not fall within the provision of exception to section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. ' I have examined the facts of the case and the documents of the learned counsel and I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to bail.
6. ' I had therefore vide my short order, dated 9-10-2006 admitted the applicants to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 each and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
7. ' Foregoing are the reasons for my short order.
8. ' The applicant is directed to co-operate in the disposal of the proceedings in the trial failing which the concession of to him may be cancelled.