HAYAT ULLAH KHAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Hayat Ullah Khan and another, who were charged under Sections 324, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged attack on the complainant, Ameer Abdullah Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The Court observed that while the FIR alleged specific firearm injuries by the petitioners, the Medico-legal Report indicated only one entry wound and two exit wounds, creating a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court noted that a co-accused, who allegedly caused a similar injury, was found innocent by the police, and no empty casings were recovered from the crime scene to link the recovered weapons to the occurrence. Holding that these factors brought the case within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, establishing that significant contradictions between ocular and medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail matters.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can the failure to recover empty casings from the crime scene be a factor in granting bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the police investigation finds a co-accused, who allegedly committed a similar act, innocent?
- 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 NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.210 of 2005, dated 1-11-2005 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 F.I.R. Is that on 1-11-2005 at 9-45 a.m., both the petitioners along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention launched attack and caused injuries to Atneer 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 16-1-2006 and Aamer Khan petitioner was arrested on 30-1-2006. Their application for the grant of post-arrest bail was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, vide dated 21-4-2006, 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 F.I.R. With the specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to Ameer Abdullah Khan P.W. And allegedly fires made by them hit Ameer Abdullah Khan on the left leg near the knee, similarly, bare perusal of F.I.R. Also reveals that co-accused of the petitioners namely Muhammad Tariq had also caused fire-arm injury to the said Ameer Abdullah Khan (P.W.)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.##TE#