KHAYAL NAWAZ vs THE STATE and another
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court through a bail petition filed by the accused petitioner after the lower forums refused the concession of bail in a case registered under sections 324, 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries and the attribution of direct and effective firing. The court held that the repetition of fire and the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., coupled with the recovery of weapon empties and prima facie involvement in a non-bailable offence, disentitle the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that intention and knowledge form the basis of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and repetition of fire is sufficient to reflect the intention to commit qatl-e-amd, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether repetition of fire is sufficient to reflect the intention to commit qatl-e-amd under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an effective role of firing is attributed?
- Are recovery of empties and a promptly lodged F.I.R. sufficient to establish prima facie involvement for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---After refusal of the concession of bail by the lower forums, the accused petitioner has approached this Court through instant application for the concession of bail in a case registered under sections 324/452/34 P.P.C., Police Station Takht-e-Nasrati vide F.I.R.
No,12 dated 10-1-2010.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case of the accused petitioner does not fall within the parameters of section 324 P.P.C. On the ground that had the accused any intention to commit qatl-e-amd of the complainant who was at the mercy of the accused petitioner standing at a distance of just two feet away from him would make the case against the accused petitioner as that of further inquiry. The punishment provided for the injures reflected in the medico legal report does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. And requested for release of the accused petitioner on bail.
3. As on the other hand, the learned A.A.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused petitioner was directly charged for effective firing with the intention to commit qatl-eamd of the complainant. Recovery of empties of .30 bore pistol from outside and inside of the house of the complainant was made and similarly a spent bullet was also recovered which prima facie reflect the involvement of the accused petitioner in the commission of offence charged with which disentitles him for the grant of concession of bail at this stage.
4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused with their assistance which would reveal that the accused petitioner was charged for a house trespass along with others and for attempting at the life of the complainant. Effective role of firing on the person of complainant was attributed to the accused petitioner and repetition of fire alone would be sufficient to reflect the intention of the accused petitioner to commit qatl-e-amd of the complainant. It is the intention and knowledge which forms the basis of section 324 P.P.C. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment provided for the injuries attributed to the accused and suffered by the complainant, does not fall under the prohibitory clause would hold no ground for the release of accused in this case. The recovery of empties from the A place attributed to the accused petitioner and the effective role given to the accused petitioner in the promptly lodged F.I.R would, at this stage of the case, be sufficient to reflect the prima facie involvement of the accused petitioner in the commission of a non-bailable offence falling under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, without going deep into the merits of the case this petition being merit less is dismissed as such.