IFTIKHAR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Iftikhar Ahmed, who was charged under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the medical evidence. The petitioner argued that the specific injury attributed to him in the F.I.R. was not supported by the Medico-legal Report of the injured party or the post-mortem report of the deceased. Furthermore, the petitioner highlighted the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner did not appear in the Medico-legal Report or the post-mortem report. While noting the suppression of injuries on the accused, the Court held that, prima facie, the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that material contradictions between the F.I.R. and medical evidence warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Does a discrepancy between the injury attributed in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused party?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- Petitioner (Iftikhar Ahmed son of Muhammad Hussain alias Ghulam Hussain) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,308 of 2007 dated 14-7-2007 offence under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i) and 302, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Kot Momin, District Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that name of the petitioner in the F.I.R. Was mentioned as Mukhtar Ahmad and according to the F.I.R., petitioner was attributed role of causing Sota below on right hand of Mst. Batool (deceased) but as per the Medico-legal Report of the injured Mst. Batool, no such injury exists on her hand. Similarly there is no injury on the right hand of deceased even according to the post mortem report. Further contends that three persons namely Allah Bukhsh, Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and Naseer Mahmood were injured from the side of accused but injuries on their part has been suppressed by the complainant party.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General on behalf of the State on instructions from the Police Officer present in Court states that petitioner has been attributed specific role of causing injury as per F. I .
R. , Sota was recovered from him and he was declared guilty. However, in case Diary No,19 dated 6- 9-2007. Muhammad Saeed S.-I./Investigating Officer has mentioned this fact that petitioner was present on spot but he did not cause any injury to complainant. However, he states that later on S.H.O. Has written case Diary No,19-A, according to which petitioner was found guilty.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that injury attributed to the petitioner does not figures in the Medico-legal Report of Mst. Batool Bibi, when she was examined on 14-7-2007 at 1-30 p.m. As per MLR, there was only one injury on her right fore-arm. Similarly, in her post-mortem report there is no mention of injury on the right hand of deceased. Although the injury on the person of accused is suppressed but without commenting upon the merits of the case, prima facie, case of petitioner falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioners are granted post- arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- GUL MAST vs KHASITA GUL and another 2015 MLD 226