BILAL vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging a firearm injury to the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injury, the applicability of the prohibitory clause, and the absence of prior criminal history. The petitioner argued that the injury was non-vital and simple, thus excluding the application of Section 324, and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Court observed that the injury was to a non-vital part of the body and lacked evidence of murderous intent. Finding no evidence that the petitioner was a hardened or habitual criminal, and noting the likelihood of a delayed trial, the Court held that continued incarceration was unjustified. The Court granted post-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that in non-prohibitory offences or cases lacking aggravating circumstances, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does an injury to a non-vital part of the body necessarily exclude the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a petitioner be denied bail solely on the basis of being nominated in the FIR if they are not a previous convict or hardened criminal?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-N(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No, 5/2007 dated 9.5.2007 under Sections 324, 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kashoba Sori, Tribal Area, District D.G. Khan.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per the contents of the FIR is that he caused injuries to brother of the complainant Mustafa at the instance of Musa son of Ibrahim, while he was standing on mountain range.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that according to the MLC it is a case under Section 337-F(iv) P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause; and Section 337-N(ii) PPC and in such like cases the imprisonment is 7 years and 5 years along with the payment of Daman or Arsh and in such case grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, the exception can only be exercised if the offender is a previous convict desperate and hardened -criminal. That the site plan prepared during the investigation by the I.O. is contradictory to the site described in the FIR.
Further stated that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body, which is on the leg of the injured, as such Section 324 P.P.C. is not attracted; that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature; therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail.
Reliance has been placed on the cases of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State (PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 46), and Jan Muhammad vs. Haji Noor Jamal and another (1998 SCMR 500).
4. Bail petition has vehemently been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR, specific role is attributed to the petitioner; that the prompt FIR has been lodged, the recovery of Rifle is yet to be made from the petitioner and at this stage only tentative assessment is to be taken into consideration; that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Asghar vs. The State (1995 P.L.R. 581).
5. Argument heard. Record perused.
6. The role attributed to the petitioner is of causing fire-arm, injury on the leg of the injured and prima facie he appeared to have no intention to fire upon the vital part of the body of the injured for the purposes of launching murderous assault and the injuries are stated to be of kissing nature.
The petitioner is behind the bars and there is no likelihood of the early conclusion of the trial and to keep the petitioner behind the bars indefinitely will not serve any useful purpose. At present there is no allegation nor any evidence on the record that the petitioner is a previous convict, habitual or hardened desperate or dangerous criminal, therefore, I have no opinion but to agree with the view taken byThe Honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as Aurangzeb vs. The State and another (1999 PCr.L.J. 230). I am persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned.
Cited by 1 case
- EHSAN ELAHI vs THE STATE And Others 2011 YLR 611