EIDAN vs . THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant/accused Eidan seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 15 of 2007 registered at Police Station Mangli under sections 337-A(i), (ii), F(i), L(ii), 504, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicant is entitled to bail where a specific role of causing a lathi blow to the head of the complainant is attributed and supported by medical evidence. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that a specific role of causing a head injury supported by medical evidence and motive disentitles the applicant to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is assigned a specific role supported by corroborative medical evidence regarding an assault, bail may be refused even if the offenses do not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does a specific role attributed to an accused for causing a head injury supported by medical evidence warrant the refusal of bail?
- Whether bail can be granted when motive and direct role are evident from the FIR and corroborated by medical certificates?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Through this application applicant/accused Eidan son of Noor Muhammad Shaikh, seeks bail in A Crime No,15 of 2007, of Police Station Mangli under sections 337-A(i), (ii), F(i), L(ii), 504, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The precise allegation against the applicant/accused is that he caused lathi below on the head of the complainant.
3. ' Learned counsel for the applicant contends that various injuries have been caused to the complainant attributed to applicant and other two co-accused and it is yet to be determined that which of the injury has been caused by which accused. It is next contended that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. ' On the other hand learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that specific role of causing, lathi blows has been assigned to the present accused duly supported by medical evidence and motive is also evident from the F.I.R. Therefore, no case of bail is made out and the application is liable to be rejected.
5. ' I have heard learned counsel and perused the record.
6. It appears that specific role of causing lathi blow on the head of the complainant has been assigned to the present applicant/accused which is also supported by medical evidence which reflect lacerated wound of 4 c.m. x 3 mm scull deep bone visible caused by a hard B and blunt substance. No malice, ill will or mala fide has been attributed to the police. In the circumstances no case of bail before arrest is made out.
7. ' The application is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- BARKAT ALI Versus State 2017 YLRN 32