MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Ishaque, who was charged under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Jhoke Utra. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of mala fide, lack of recovery, his status as a public servant, and the absence of a submitted challan. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role in causing grievous injury to the victim, Mst. Kausar Parveen, supported by medical evidence. Upon review, the Court observed that the victim had been severely defaced, indicating the desperate character of the petitioner. The Court held that sufficient prima facie evidence existed to connect the petitioner to the offence, which fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that the gravity of the specific injury and the prima facie case against the accused precluded the grant of bail.
- Does the presence of medical evidence corroborating the specific role of an accused in causing grievous injury justify the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the nature of the injury, such as defacement, be considered a factor in determining the desperate character of an accused during bail proceedings?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK J.---Muhammad Ishaque son of Muhammad Iqbal petitioner seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 266/2008, dated 30.9.2008 registered at Police Station Jhoke Utra District D.G. Khan under Sections 324/34, PPC at the complaint of Hazoor Bukhsh son of Elahi Bukhsh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused grievous heart to Kausar Parveen, wife of Fayyaz Hussain elder brother of the accused.
3. It is inter alia contended that the case against the petitioner is tainted with malice and inala fide that this is an in-witnessed occurrence; that the petitioner is no more required for investigation purpose; that the presence of PWs at the place of occurrence is unnatural, and that the petitioner is behind the bar for the (sic) that the challan has not yet been submitted in the Court and there is no likelihood of its commencement in near future; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner; that the petitioner is a public servant and cannot commit such offence; he has been involved due to family rivalry and that the petitioner is a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the bail is vehemently opposed by the Jearned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as the learned counsel representing the complainant.
5. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR with attribution of specific role of causing previous injury to injured PW Mst. Kauser . Parveen. The oral account is corroborated by the medical evidence. Motive part is also attributed to him.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly the petitioner is named in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries on the face of Mst. Kausar Parveen victim of this case duly-corroborated by medical evidence. Mst. Kausar Parveen has appeared before me alongwith her counsel. I have seen her face i.e, place of injury, She in fact has been defaced. The attack on her face subjects desperate character of the petitioner. Sufficient evidence is available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the offence alleged against, which clearly attracts prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, find no merits in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.