MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 490 registered under sections 324, 337F(i), 337L(ii), 337H(ii), 448, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Burewala, District Vehari. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail, noting that the injury was skin-deep constituting a bailable offense, that the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further probe, and that the accused were no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where the applicability of a prohibitory clause offense is open to further inquiry and the medical evidence suggests a minor injury, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Whether the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrants further probe when the medical report shows a skin-deep injury?
- Are petitioners entitled to post-arrest bail when their custodial interrogation is no longer required by the police?
- Whether offences under sections 337F(i), 337L(ii), 337H(ii), 448, 511, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 are bailable?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, - J.--The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,490 dated 18-11-2008 registered under sections 324/337F(i)/L(ii)/ H(ii)/448/511/148/149, P.P.C, at Police Station Sadar Burewala District Vehari.
2. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners and their co-accused are.That they while armed with deadly weapons came along with their cattle and started tying their cattle inside the wall of Mill. When the complainant stopped them from doing so, they started abusing him. Muhammad Islam caused a fire which hit Irshad Ahmad at left side of his face. Second fire was caused by Muhammad Aslam at Muhammad Faiz who saved himself by lying on the ground. Muhammad Ashraf caused fire shot at the complainant but the complainant saved himself by moving behind the wall. Naeem and Jamal Din also caused fire shots. Thereafter, Muhammad Aslam and Naeem caught hold of Irshad Ahmad. Muhammad Aslam gave blow of rifle butt at right knee of Irshad Ahmad while Naeem inflicted pistol butt blow at left calf of Irshad Ahmad.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and persuing ther record it has been noticed by this court that the petitioners were armed with fire arms. The fire shot attributed to Muhammad Islam Petitioner No,1 hit on the left side of face of Irshad Ahmad. The fire shot by Muhammad Naeem remained ineffective. A perusal of the medico legal report indicates that a skin deep rounded wound was noticed on the person of Irshad Ahmad which was Shuiah-e-Khafifah creating a bailable offence. Muhammad Islam petitioner did not repeat the second fire. Similar is the case of Muhammad Naeem. Had both the petitioners been equipped with an intention to commit Qatl-i-amd of P.Ws, there was hardly anything in their way to shot fire at them and caused their death. The question of the applicability of section 324, P.P.C, is a matter of further probe. The petitioners were arrested in this case, sent to judicial lock up and at present, their person is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Offences under sections 337F(i)/ L(ii)/H(ii)/ 448/ 511/ 148/149, P.P.C, are bailable. In these circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail. Though, the learned counsel for the complainant relies upon the cases of Muhammad Ali Khan alias Mamdal v. The State and 2 others (2007 PCr.LJ 217), Muhammad Sarwar and others v.
The State (1998 SD 32), Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (1999 M LD 1526) and Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State (PLD 1996 Lah. 126), but I am afraid that the facts and circumstances of the stated precedents are distinguishable and not applicable to the present case.
4. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.