Muhammad Luqman And Another vs The State
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition whereby the petitioners, Muhammad Luqman and Nosher, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 254 dated 13.10.2007 registered under Sections 324/337-F(5)/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahianwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the contentions regarding discrepancies between ocular and medical accounts, the non-vital nature of the injuries, and the rule of consistency with co-accused who were already granted bail. The Court held that the petition should be allowed, granting post-arrest bail to the petitioners. The key principles laid down include that where contradictions exist between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding fire-shot entries, and injuries are sustained on non-vital parts of the body, a case for further inquiry is made out under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when co-accused similarly situated have already been granted bail.
- Whether contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the attribution of an injury to a non-vital part of the body bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has 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 MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J. - The petitioners, namely Muhammad Luqman and Nosher, through this petition, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 254, dated. 13.10.2007, offence under Sections 324/337-F(5)/148/149, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, Sahianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioners in the F.I.R, is that they both while armed with fire-arms alongwith four other persons came at the spot and Muhammad Luqman made foreshot which hit injured Monday Khan at his with hower part of the leg whereas second foreshot made by Nosher hit took 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, P.P.C, requires further inquiry and that the case of the petitioners is at part with their co- accused Saeed etc. Who have been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 23.4.2008 through Crim. Miscellaneous No. 2689-B of 2008.
4. On the other hand, learned D.P.G, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that Section 324, P.P.C, 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 F.I.R, 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.