GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE and another
This petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, who was accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside provisions of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of ineffective firing and the absence of injuries sustained by the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that no medical report was obtained, no weapon of offense was recovered from the petitioner, and no crime empties were found at the scene of the occurrence. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the absence of corroborative evidence and the lack of injury rendered the case one of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to produce medical evidence or recover incriminating material in cases of ineffective firing, the matter shifts to one of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of a medical report in a case of alleged firing render the matter one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the absence of recovery of crime empties from the scene of occurrence a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to establish that any injury was caused to the complainant?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Ghulam Hussain son of Muhammad Yar seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,214 of 2009 dated 20-6-2009 registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari, under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. And 13/20/65, A.O. At the instance of Ghulam Ali son of Falak Sher, complainant, respondent No,2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20-6-2009 the accused/petitioner along with others injured the complainant by causing "Butt" blow on his back and by making firing upon the complainant. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest before the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Vehari, who vide order dated 4-7-2009 dismissed the same. Then petitioner moved his post-arrest bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, who vide order dated 16-10-2009 also refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery of any sort of weapon of offence was made from the petitioner, previous enmity exists between the parties as the complainant earlier had lodged F.I.R. No,184 of 2009 dated 2-6-2009 under sections 337-A(iii), 337-F(ii), 337-A(i)/34, P.P.C. Against the petitioner, so, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out; no injury was caused on the person of the complainant, neither any medical has been obtained from the doctor, according to the same, offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is not made out; only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot by the Investigating Officer, which makes the case doubtful and one of further inquiry; petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of recovery and investigation; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will serve no useful purpose; petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is a promptly lodged F.I.R; petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; challan has been submitted on 30-9-2009; petitioner was found guilty in the investigation and four cases have already got registered against him, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. In this occurrence no person was injured only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner and other co-accused. No empty was recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in those F.I.Rs, which the D.D.P.P. Referred against the petitioner, compromise has been effected and were cancelled although got registered against him, no body was injured.
No MLC is obtained by the complainant, not appended with the police file. In view of above discussion, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry, which needs further investigation into the guilt of the petitioner under section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.