HUSSAIN BAKHSH vs THE STATE and another
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Hussain Bakhsh, who was charged under Section 324 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted, the lack of repetition of the act, and the fact that the injuries were on non-vital parts of the body. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the injuries were simple, not on vital parts, and there was no repetition of the blow, suggesting a lack of pre-meditation necessary for an offence under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the court noted that the maximum punishment for the likely applicable offence, Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where injuries are simple, non-vital, and lack repetition, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition necessarily constitute an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the mere registration of prior criminal cases sufficient to deny bail to an accused?
- Does an offence punishable by a maximum of three years imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.--- Through this petition, petitioner Hussain Bakhsh son of Nabi Bakhsh seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,286/2009 dated 16-8-2009 registered at Police Station Kot Mithan, District Rajanpur, under sections 324, 34, P.P.C. At the instance of Khadim Hussain son of Haji Lal, complainant, respondent No,2
2. Briefly allegations against the present petitioner are that the present accused/petitioner while armed with deadly weapon/gun and further having assistance of his co-accused launched a murderous assault upon the complainant Khadim Hussain. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. Petitioner applied for post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur, who vide order dated 24-10-2009 refused to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has exonerated two of the accused, who have been declared innocent vide Zimini No,11 dated 30-8-2009; the injuries are on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant, which suggest that there was no intention to kill the complainant; the petitioner made only one fire shot hitting on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant i,e, left thigh and calf (Pindli) and as there was no repetition, in view of the said circumstances no offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is made out, at the maximum the injuries attributed to the accused/petitioners attracted the offence under section 337-F(iii) P.P.C., which does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; petitioner is no more required by the police for the purpose of inquiry and investigation; that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will serve no useful purpose; that petitioner is previously non-convict, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the, complainant submits that there is promptly lodged F.I.R.; petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; recovery of .12 bore pistol has been effected from the petitioner; petitioner is a record holder and found guilty in the investigation; petitioner is a main accused, who caused injuries to the complainant; it was a day light occurrence; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. 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. Challan has been submitted before the trial Court on 25-12-2009. Petitioner is previously record holder but not convicted in any case as many F.L Rs, were got registered. Mere registration of case is not sufficient to hold some one guilty. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and his further incarceration in the jail will serve no useful purpose. The injuries attributed to the petitioner are simple in nature and no injury is grievous. Maximum punishment of section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Is 3 years, the injury attributed to the petitioner is not on the vital part of the body of the injured, which does not establish pre-meditation. If injuries are found at some vital part, then, intention to kill would have been gathered. Petitioner inflicted only one injury and did not repeat the blow. The co- accused, Ahmad Bukhsh was declared innocent by the Investigating Officer, which makes the case of the petitioner as one of further inquiry.
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 a, e tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.