Ali Akhtar vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ali Akhtar, who is accused of causing a hatchet injury to the complainant's brother, resulting in a skull fracture, in a case registered under sections 337-AI, 337A-VI, 337-FI, 337F-IV, 337F-VI, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, given that co-accused had already been granted bail, and the claim of self-defence. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused due to the specific, corroborated role attributed to him in the promptly lodged F.I.R. and the severity of the injury supported by the medico-legal report. The Court established that the rule of consistency does not apply when the petitioner's role is distinct and supported by strong evidence, and that a plea of self-defence requires substantiating evidence, such as injuries sustained by the accused, which was absent in this case.
- Does the rule of consistency apply to a co-accused when their role is distinguishable from those already granted bail?
- Is a plea of self-defence sufficient to grant bail without supporting evidence of injuries sustained by the accused?
- Can bail be denied when the F.I.R. is promptly lodged and corroborated by a medico-legal report?
- Section 337-AI, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A-VI, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-FI, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F-IV, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F-VI, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J. - The petitioner seeks his bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 244, dated 3.10.2010, under Sections 337-AI, 337A-VI, 337-FI, 337F-IV, 337F-VI, 324, 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Jatli, Tehsil Gujjar Khan, District Rawalpindi.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that on the day of occurrence, he alongwith his co-accused made a criminal assault upon the complainant. The petitioner gave a hatchet blow which hit upon the head of Muhammad Ikram, the brother of complainant, resulting fracture of skull of Muhammad Ikram.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact complainant and other co-accused made a criminal trespass in the house of petitioner where Muhammad Ikram, brother of complainant received injury during the course of self-defence of petitioner. All other co-accused have already been granted bail, therefore, under the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail. He further contends that occurrence had taken place in the house of petitioner which makes the case of petitioner of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner be also released on bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of record highlights that petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing hatchet injury to injured Muhammad Ikram, the brother of complainant. It was a promptly lodged F.I.R. The contents of F.I.R. Are corroborated with the medico-legal report, according to which, the skull bone of injured Muhammad Ikram was broken and the brain was coming out of it.
The petitioner has failed to point out any evidence that he or any other resident of his house suffered any injury nor could prove that if the complainant party had trespassed in his house and made an assault they were armed with various weapons. Challan of the case has since been sent to Court. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the other co-accused who have been released on bail. No ground for bail is made out. This petition is without any merit, same is dismissed.