MANZOOR HUSSAIN alias MANZOOR vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Manzoor Hussain, who was charged under sections 324, 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving an alleged firearm assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was accused of accompanying a co-accused who allegedly fired a Kalashnikov, was entitled to bail given the nature of the injury attributed to him and the investigation's findings. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case warranted further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the medical evidence, which described the injury as a simple, skin-deep 'kissing injury' (Ghair Jaiffa-e-Mutalahimah), contradicted the prosecution's claim that a high-powered weapon like a Kalashnikov was used. Consequently, the Court established the principle that where the nature of the injury is inconsistent with the weapon allegedly used, and where the extent of the petitioner's common intention remains a matter for trial, the denial of bail is not justified, as bail should not be withheld as a form of pre-trial punishment.
- Does a discrepancy between the weapon allegedly used and the nature of the injury sustained constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment pending the finality of a criminal trial?
- Is the determination of common intention in an attempt to murder case a matter that requires the recording of evidence at trial rather than summary assessment at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.- Petitioner sough bail after arrest in case FIR No,849 of 2007 dated 19-11-2007 registered under sections 324, 337-F(iii), 34, PPC at Police Station Sadar D.G. Khan.
2. Alleged on 19-11-2007 near pull Dukkri, the accused/petitioner Manzoor Hussain along with his co- accused armed with Kalashnikov with the common intention of his co-accused caused injury to the complainant. F.I.R. Was lodged on the same.
3. Argued by the counsel for ' petitioner that in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Petitioner was found present at the spot and boarded to his co- accused on motorcycle to come at spot but the fire was made by the co-accused Abdul Khaliq. Petitioner has not caused any injury. That the injury attributed to petitioner is simple skin deep and of nature of kissing injury on left lower chest below the belly which is Ghair Jaiffa-e- Mutalahimah and the maximum punishment may be extended up to three years as Tazir. Further argued that real fact has been suppressed because such a simple injury cannot be caused by the Kalashnikov. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. F.I.R. Is not containing the time of occurrence. That there is only one injury Of Kalashnikov'shot and burst has been attributed to petitioner and the co-accused Abdul Khaliq.
4. State counsel assisted by counsel for the complainant opposed all these grounds.
5. Heard. Nature of the injury attributed to petitioner is a kissing injury, skin deep in nature and Ghair Jaiffa-e- Mutalahimah. According to investigation he has not fired at the injured. Injury is simple in nature. The question raised that if Kalashnikov fire was made it would had caused very serious injury on the body of the victim whereas conclusion of the investigation is that he accompanied with co-accused Abdul Khakliq who is still absconding but the participation of the petitioner to make fire with Kalashnikov causing a small injury of kissing to skin is possible or not. The common intention of the petitioner with his co-accused and causing simple injury with Kalashnikov and the result of the investigation concluding that in fact Abdul Khaliq co-accused has caused the injury make it a case of further inquiry because to deprive a person from the bail is most serious step. The attending circumstances to determine sharing, common intention with his co-accused in commission of the offence for attempt to murder is a question which could be determined after record of evidence. The right of the bail cannot be withheld as punishment by keeping him behind the bars for indefinite period and till the finality of the case. There is reasonable ground which appeals to the mind of a prudent man that if Kalashnikov was used and burst fired such a simple injury could have not been caused. The injury in the medico legal certificate and in the report of Radiologist Ghair Jaiffa-e-Mutalahimah a kissing injury on skin is explained. Therefore as observed above it is the matter of further inquiry. Petitioner is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 or with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.