MUHAMMAD LUQMAN and another vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 254/2007, registered under Sections 324, 337-F(5), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of firearm injuries and the applicability of Section 324 PPC. The petitioners contended that there was a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence, noting that the injury was on a non-vital part of the body and that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the ocular version appeared prima facie inconsistent with the medical evidence, as only a single entry wound was present despite allegations of two separate shots. Furthermore, the Court noted the injury was on a non-vital body part and that the petitioners' case was similar to co-accused already granted bail. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, emphasizing that the determination of effective firing required trial evidence, and granted the petition subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the number of firearm injuries justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the fact that an injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body a relevant consideration for bail in an attempted murder case?
- Should bail be granted to petitioners whose case is at par with co-accused who have already been admitted to bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(5), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners, namely Muhammad Luqman and Nosher, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 254 dated 13.10.2007, offence under Sections 324/337-F(5)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station, Sahianwala District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioners in the FIR is that they both while armed with fire-arms along with four other persons came at the spot and Muhammad Luqman made fireshot which hit injured Monday Khan at his right lower part of the leg whereas second fireshot made by Nosher hit too, on the right leg.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence; that the injuries on the person injured PW is on non-vital part of the body and application of Section 324 PPC requires further inquiry and that the case of the petitioners is at par with their co-accused Saeed etc. who have been allowed bail by this Courc vide order dated 23.04.2008 through Crim. Misc. No, 2689-B of 2008.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that Section 324 PPC is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as both the petitioners attempted to commit murder of Monday Khan but fortunately he is alive. Further argued that the petitioner fractured leg of the injured due to the causing of injuries and the injured is unable to move till to date and trial has commenced, as charge has been framed. He relies on 2002 SCM R 1381.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that prima facie ocular version given in the FIR is contra to the medical as there is only single entry wound on the right leg of injured Monday Khan, and it is yet to be determined after recording of evidence by the learned trial Court that whose fire shot was effective out of two petitioners. Even otherwise the injury attributed to the petitioners is on non-vital part of the body of the injured and case of the petitioners is at par with his co-accused Saeed, who has been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 23.4.2008. Although charge has been framed but not a single witness is recorded till date, and petitioners are behind the bars for about nine months. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Reliance can be had to PLD 2004 SC 477.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.