MUBASHAR ALI vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 324, 354, 148, 149, and 337F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with an FIR involving firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation, the medical evidence, and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the medical evidence (M.L.R.) did not corroborate the specific injury attributed to the petitioner, and noting that a co-accused with a similar role had been declared innocent during the investigation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the injury was to a non-vital part of the body, the petitioner had been incarcerated for approximately 11 months, and the trial was not progressing despite the submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case regarding the specific injury attributed to an accused lacks medical corroboration and co-accused with similar roles are exonerated, the case becomes one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the lack of medical corroboration for a specific injury attributed to an accused make the case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Is the fact that a co-accused with a similar role was declared innocent during investigation a valid ground for granting bail to the petitioner?
- Does the delay in the progression of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail when the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The learned counsel seeks post arrest bail of the petitioner in F.I.R. No, 318/2006 dated 28.3.2008 under Sections 324, 354, 148, 149, 337F(vi) P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kahna, District Lahore.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. the allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith co- accused armed with fire-arm weapons caused injuries to Muhammad Shahbaz @ Sabi son of complainant and that he fired a shot with his Mouzer which hit to the son of the complainant on his right leg.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the three co-accused have been declared innocent during the investigation; that the petitioner had been arrested on 22.4.2008; that there is a delay of 5/6 hours in lodging of the FIR. The petitioner had only made a single fire which hit on the right leg of the son of the complainant Muhammad Shahbaz alias Sabi and the fire of the co- accused namely Shaukat Ali also stated to hit on the right leg of the injured Shahbaz alias Sabi and this is not corroborated with the M.L.R. It is further stated that it cannot be ascertained that whose fire has impaired the legal of the injured as such the case of the petitioner has become that of further inquiry. It is further stated that the injury is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured; that the recoveries are fake.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR; that the recovery has been effected from him and that he has been found guilty. It is further contended that the trial has commenced, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The injury attributed to the petitioner indicates that the petitioner fired upon the legs of the injured Shahbaz alias Sabi, which is not corroborated with the M.L.R. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Sarfraz, who was also attributed the role of causing fire-arm injury to the injured has been declared innocent during the investigation; therefore, the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. Moreover, the injury is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured Shahbaz. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 11 months and no more required for further investigation, therefore, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Although the challan has been submitted but the trial is not progressing.
6. Relying upon the cases of Muhammad Umer vs. The State (PLD 2004 S.C.477), Raham Hussain vs. The State and another (2008 YLR 1064) and Muhammad Mansha vs. The State (2007 YLR 515), this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.