MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ishaque, who was accused in FIR No. 266/2008 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing grievous injury to the complainant's wife. The petitioner argued that the case was tainted by malice, the occurrence was un-witnessed, he was no longer required for investigation, and he was a public servant with no prior convictions. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR with a direct attribution of injury, which was corroborated by medical evidence. Upon review, the Court observed that the victim had suffered severe facial injuries, indicating a desperate character. The Court held that sufficient prima facie evidence existed to connect the petitioner to the offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing the gravity of the specific injury and the strength of the prima facie case against the accused.
- Does the presence of specific medical evidence corroborating an FIR allegation regarding grievous injury justify the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence involving a specific role in causing severe injury, such as defacement, fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the status of a petitioner as a public servant sufficient ground to grant bail in a non-bailable offence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Ishaque son of Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 266/2008 dated .30.9.2008 registered at Police Station Jhoke Utra District D.G. Khan under Sections 324/34 PPC at the complaint of Hazoor Bukhsh son of Elahi Bukhsh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused grievous heart to Kausar Parveen, wife of Fayyaz. Hussain elder brother of the accused.
3. It is inter alia contended that the case against the petitioner is tainted with malice and mala fide; that this is an un-witnessed occurrence, that the petitioner is no more required for investigation purpose; that the presence of PWs at the place of occurrence is unnatural; and that the petitioner is behind the bar for the (Sick) months that the challan has not yet been submitted in the Court and there is no likelihood of its commencement in near future; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is a public servant and cannot commit such offence; he has been involved due to family rivalry and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General as well as the learned counsel representing the complainant.
5. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR with attribution of specific role of causing grievous injury to injured PW Mst. Kasuar Parveen. The oral account is corroborated by the medical evidence. Motive part is also attributed to him.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly the petitioner is named in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries on the face of Mst. Kausar Parveen victim of this case duly corroborated by medical evidence. Mst. Kausar Parveen has appeared before me alongwith her counsel. I have seen her face i,e, place of injury.
She- in fact has been defaced. The attack on her face depicts desperate character of the petitioner. Sufficient evidence is available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the offence alleged against, which clearly attracts prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. I, therefore find no merits in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.