MUBASHAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Mubashar Ali in relation to FIR No. 318 of 2006 registered under sections 324, 354, 148, 149, and 337F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, District Lahore. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the firearm injury attributed to him lacks medical corroboration, a co-accused with a similar role was declared innocent, the injury is on a non-vital part of the body, and the petitioner has already been incarcerated for a considerable period without substantial progress in the trial. The court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, reinforcing principles related to further inquiry, non-vital injury sites, and undue prolonged pre-trial detention.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the firearm injury attributed to the accused lacks corroboration from the medical-legal report?
- Does the declaration of innocence of a co-accused during investigation make the case of the remaining accused one of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the injury is inflicted on a non-vital part of the body and the trial is not progressing?
- 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
' IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.---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 along with co- accused armed with fire-arm weapons caused injuries= to Muhammad Shahbaz @ Sabi son of complainant and that he fired a shot with the 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 three is a delay of 5/6 hours in lodging of the F.I.R, 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 F.I.R 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 A 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.
6A. Relying upon the cases of Muhammad Umer v. The State (PLD 2004 SC 477), Raham Hussain v.
The State and another (2008 YLR 1064) and Muhammad Mansha v. 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 A Court.