MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MEHMOOD and 2 others
This matter concerns a criminal miscellaneous application filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the trial court in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in granting bail, particularly regarding the application of the rule of consistency and the assessment of the specific roles attributed to the accused in the FIR. The complainant argued that the trial court failed to consider the material on record and the injuries sustained. The respondents contended that they were assigned minor roles (danda blows) compared to the co-accused who allegedly fired shots and used an axe, and that they had not misused the concession of bail. The Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail, as the specific role assigned to the respondents did not warrant cancellation, and the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that bail cancellation requires substantial grounds, such as misuse of the concession, which were absent in this case.
- Does the assignment of minor roles in an FIR, compared to co-accused, justify the grant of bail pending further inquiry?
- Is the absence of misuse of bail concession a relevant factor in refusing a petition for bail cancellation?
- Can a trial court's grant of bail be set aside if the case requires further inquiry into the specific roles of the accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, C J.---This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) in Crime No,320/05 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Saeedabad.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution succinctly stated are that there was a dispute on a plot with Yousuf Vichani which was later on settled. On 16-11-2005 when father of the complainant Qadir Bukhsh was coming out from his buffaloes pond, at about 10-00 a.m. Four persons including Yousuf Vichani, Saleem son of Lal Muhammad and sons of Saleem namely Pappu and Mehmood came there.
3. Yousuf was having TT pistol whereas Saleem had axe and Pappu and Mehmood were holding dandas in their hands. They attacked on his father with intention to kill. Yousuf fired two shots on his father which were missed. Saleem and his sons attacked. Saleem hit butt of axe on head of complainant's father while Yousuf also gave pistol butt blows on head of his father due to which his father received injuries on his head and other parts of body and he became unconscious. Mohalla people gathered there and witnessed the scene. Culprits escaped from the scene.
4. ' It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant that the learned trial Court has wrongly granted bail to the respondents without considering material available on record; that the learned trial Court has misapplied the rule of consistency in the case of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by comparing the role of accused Yousuf; that the respondents have been nominated in the F.I.R; that the learned trial court has not considered the case law cited by him; that the injuries caused to the father of the complainant have not been considered by the lower Court; that the respondents/accused are threatening to the complainant for dire consequences and lastly that in these circumstances the accused are not entitled to the concession of bail and such concession may be recalled by this Court.
5. ' Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant by contending that the respondents have not misused the concession of bail; that the role assigned to the respondents in the F.I.R. Is of causing dandas while other injuries were alleged to have been caused by co-accused. It is also contended that it is the case of the prosecution that co-accused Saleem hit butt of axe on the head of the complainant's father while accused Yousuf fired two shots and gave pistol butt blows on the head of the father of complainant and in such circumstances where the injures alleged against the present respondents went, which means the present respondents/accused have not caused injuries and they were involved in this case due to mala fide intention of the complainant. Therefore, the case is of further inquiry and the learned trial Court has rightly granted bail to the accused/respondents.
6. He also contended that section 324, P.P.C. Does not apply as the injuries sustained by the complainant's side are not dangerous to life. Therefore, this case is of further inquiry and the learned trial Court has rightly granted bail to the accused/respondents. He also contended that section 324, P.P.C. Does not apply as the injuries sustained by the complainant's side are not dangerous to life.
7. ' Learned counsel for the State while supporting the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that since the respondents have not misused the concession of bail, therefore, they are entitled to concession of bail.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the material available on the record.
9. The prosecution has assigned the role of causing danda blows to the father of the complainant and the record shows that the injuries were caused by the co-accused, therefore, the case of the respondents does not come within the ambit of grounds set forth for cancellation of bail. The trial Court has rightly granted bail to the respondents.
10. ' In view of the above discussion. I find no merit in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application and dismiss the same.