ABOU BAKAR vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving fatal injuries to the complainant's maternal uncle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the alleged discrepancies between the ocular account in the F.I.R. and the medical evidence, as well as the inconsistency regarding the weapon attributed to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that while the F.I.R. alleged the petitioner was armed with a rifle, the investigation recovered only a 'Sota' (stick), and there was a prima facie conflict between the ocular account and the medical reports regarding the number of injuries sustained. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's specific role and involvement fell within the purview of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant discrepancy between the prosecution's ocular account and the medical evidence, the case against an accused may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a discrepancy between the ocular account in an F.I.R. and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the recovery of a weapon different from that alleged in the F.I.R. a relevant factor for determining the entitlement to bail?
- Can an accused be granted post-arrest bail when the prosecution's case relies on a general role that conflicts with medical findings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,44 dated 27-1-2009 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Saddar Raiwind, Kasur.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with rifle accompanied by co- accused inflicted injuries to Muhammad Aslam maternal uncle of the complainant, due to which he died.
3. It is contended by learned counsel that in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been shown to be armed with rifle but during investigation only a Sota has been allegedly recovered from him; that the petitioner is not attributed any specific injury and as a general role he has been alleged to have caused injuries on the legs and arms of the injured, which injuries are even in conflict with the medical evidence as in the Medico-legal certificate four injuries have been shown, whereas postmortem report shows seven injuries and that case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail on the ground that specific injuries have been attributed to the petitioner; that petitioner was also implicated by the deceased in his dying declaration; that both the legs and arms of the injured Muhammad Aslam were broken and that there is sufficient evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.
5. Learned Record perused.
6. Per contents of the F.I.R. As well as according to the statement of the deceased when he was in injured condition, the petitioner was alleged to be armed with rifle, but during investigation only a Sota has been shown to have been recovered from him. According to the F.I.R. In all five persons repeated injuries on the person of the deceased, but the medical evidence only shows four to seven injuries, as such, prima facie there is conflict between the ocular and the medical account of the occurrence. Though the opinion of the police is not binding on the Court yet to the extent of involvement of the petitioner that he was armed with rifle but did not use the same during the incident and had only given butt blows, bring the case against the petitioner within the purview of further inquiry. Apart from the above, petitioner is behind the bars and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail in the above case on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. The learned trial Court is directed to ensure that trial of the case is concluded within a period of three months, of receipt of this order.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mst. BHAGUL vs The STATE 2017 YLR 629
- HAROON KHAN vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 806