SOOMAR and another vs THE STATE
This bail application was filed on behalf of applicants Soomar and Umer, who were arrested in connection with an incident involving offences under sections 302, 324, 114, 147, 148, 149, 34, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, armed with a hatchet and a lathi, caused injuries to a prosecution witness, while co-accused caused fatal injuries to the deceased. The applicants sought confirmation of interim post-arrest bail, arguing that they had been in custody for over two years without the trial concluding, did not cause any injuries to the deceased, and that the injuries attributed to them fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court allowed the application and confirmed the bail, holding that because the injuries fell outside the prohibitory clause and the applicants had been detained for over two years, it remained a matter of further inquiry to determine whether they shared a common intention with the co-accused to commit murder.
- Whether accused persons who did not cause injuries to the deceased and whose attributed injuries fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are entitled to bail?
- Does a continuous detention of over two years without the conclusion of trial constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the determination of shared common intention to commit murder among co-accused is a matter of further inquiry at the bail stage when the specific injuries caused by them do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(i), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of applicants/accused Soomar and Umer, who were granted interim bail after arrested by this Court where after waiting for, the final medical certificate of the injured Ali Asghar after arrest bail was granted to both the applicants/accused. Now the matter has come for confirmation of that bail or otherwise.
2. ' The brief facts of the case being that the accused Soomar was arrested on 13-6-2006 and accused Umer was arrested on 20-6-2006 for the involvement in a offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 114, 147, 148, 149, 34 and 504, P.P.C. The allegations being that on 31-5-2006 accused Usman and Nooro had matrimonial dispute when on the above date when the complainant Niaz Ahmed along with his uncle Esso and cousin Ali Asghar were opening water courses of their land, they were attacked by Usman, Nooro and Soomar armed with hatchets while Umer had a lathi and Wall Muhammad and others instigated the other accused to attack upon which Usman and Nooro caused hatchet blows on the head of Essa. Soomar and Umer caused hatchet and Lathi blows on the head and other parts of the body, of P.W. Ali Asghar, Essa succumbed to the injuries while Ali Asghar received injuries, in which Injury No,1 was incised wound and the remaining were contused wounds. Injury No,1 to have been caused by sharp edged weapon while the remaining injuries were caused with hard and blunt object. They were described as Shajah-e-Medihah under section 337-A(ii) and Shajah-e-Khafifa, under section 337-A(i) and the remaining three injuries were all found to be Ghyr-Jaifah Damiyah under section 337-F(i), P.P.C.
3. This is a final medical report produced by the prosecution there is no report regarding Injury No,1, being incised wound received by the injured. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants/accused that they are in custody for more than two years, the case is not concluded and they have not caused any injuries to the deceased, their case is at different footing, the punishment for the injuries as given in the final medical report shows that the case does not fall with in the prohibitory cause to section 497, Cr.P.C. The applicants/accused may be released on bail.
4. ' The learned State Counsel has opposed the bail application.
5. Considering that the High Court had released the accused on interim bail after arrest under such circumstances considering that the accused Soomar was in custody since 13-6-2006 while Umer in custody since 20-6-2006. They have remained in custody for more than two years and that the punishment for the injuries inflicted for which the final report has been issued show that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause to section 497(i), Cr.P.C. It is a matter of further enquiry to determine whether the applicants/accused had the common intention to commit murder or attempt to commit murder with co-accused. I, therefore, allow this bail application. Both the applicants/accused be released on bail on their furnishing surety for the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail to the applicants/accused if sufficient evidence showing the guilt of the accused for having committed non-bailable offence is produced by the prosecution. Accordingly this bail application stands disposed of.