RAHIM BAKHSH vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 202 registered under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-A(vi)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Taunsa. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictions between the medical evidence, the statements of the injured, and the allegations in the FIR. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the single brick blow attributed to the petitioner lacked repetition, the injured person's subsequent statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contradicted the FIR regarding the site of injury, medical evidence did not support the alleged chest injury, the duration of hospital stay was brief despite a serious injury classification, and the trial had not yet commenced while the petitioner had been incarcerated since July 2007. The key principle laid down is that contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, coupled with delayed recording of statements and prolonged pre-trial incarceration without commencement of trial, make a case for further inquiry under the prohibitory clause, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the injured person's statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contradicts the allegations in the FIR?
- Does a single injury without repetition by a non-conventional weapon like a brick justify further inquiry into the applicability of the prohibitory clause?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial is a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in cases of hurt?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Rahim Bakhsh-petitioner has sough post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 202, registered at Police Station Taunsa, on 02-07-2007, for offences under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-A(vi)/34, PPC.
2. According to FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is that he gave one brick blow on the forehead of Ghulam Farid, brother of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner armed with brick inflicted brick blow at the head of Ghulam Farid/PW and the injury sustained by Ghulam Farid was declared as "Shajja-i-Damighah"; there was no intention of the petitioner to cause serious injury to Ghulam Farid, whose statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20-07-2007, in which Ghulam Farid stated that the petitioner had caused injury on his chest as such injury attributed in the FIR is not corroborated by the statement of Ghulam Farid/injured; other co-accused namely Mukhtar and Manzoor, who were shown armed with pistols have been declared innocent by the police, thus, veracity of the statement of complainant is not beyond doubt; the injured was admitted in the hospital on 01-07-2007 and he was discharged on 05.07.2007 but his statement was recorded on 20-07-2007 i,e, after delay of 15 days of his discharge, which also creates doubt.
4. Conversely, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is nominated in the FIR; motive is also attributed to him and injury caused to Ghulam Farid is clearly assigned to the petitioner, which has been declared as "Shajja-i-Damighah", which is punishable with 14 years imprisonment, as such offence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause.
5. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record in hand, it has been noticed that the petitioner is named in the FIR and is shown equipped with brick. He allegedly caused injuryito Ghulam Farid with the brick. Brick is not a weapon, which can be chosen by an accused for commission of offence usually. According to FIR, the petitioner has made only single attempt. He did not repeat the attempt. Statement of Ghulam Farid injured was recorded by the police under 3ection 161 Cr.P.C. on 20-07-2007 wherein he disclosed that the petitioner had caused injury to him on his chest but as per medical evidence no such injury has been found on the chest of Ghulam Farid. His statement is directly in conflict with the allegations leveled in the FIR. The petitioner is behind the bars since July, 2007 and trial has not yet commenced. Thus, no body can be kept behind the bars for indefinite period. Nature of injury as declared by the Doctor also creates doubt, as the injured remained admit in the hospital only for four days after receiving such serious injury.
6. Keeping in view the above facts, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Two Lacs Rs, 2,00,000/-), with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.