GUL JEHAN alias KHAN and anothers vs FAIZULLAH KHAN and 3 others
This matter concerns a bail application filed by two petitioners, Gul Jehan alias Khan and Ajmal Khan, who were charged under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Naurang. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the nature of the evidence against each. The Court distinguished between the two petitioners. Regarding Ajmal Khan, the Court found that he was directly charged with firing at the deceased, who sustained multiple injuries supported by medical evidence, and thus denied him bail. Conversely, regarding Gul Jehan, the Court noted that he was charged with attempting to kill the complainant, who sustained only a single injury attributed to two different accused persons. The Court held that the determination of whose shot caused the injury was a matter for trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application for Ajmal Khan but granted bail to Gul Jehan, establishing that where multiple accused are charged for a single injury, the case warrants further inquiry at trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when charged with causing a single injury attributed to two different accused persons?
- Does the presence of multiple injuries on a deceased victim, supported by medical evidence, preclude the grant of bail to an accused directly charged with the firing?
- Can bail be granted to one co-accused while denied to another based on the specific nature of the allegations against each?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ATTAULLHA KHAN, J.---Gul Jehan alias Khan and Ajmal Khan are charged in case F.I.R. No,193 dated 22-5-2010 of Police Station Naurang under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. And their applications for bail have been turned down by the courts below vide impugned orders, hence this application for the same relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that according to the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the petitioners are innocent and have been declared as such. According to him, the petitioners being Government servants were present on duly at the relevant time; that the petitioner Gul Jehan is charged for causing injury to Naveedullah and that he had sustained a solitary injury for which two persons are charged and it is to be decided at trial as to whose fire shot proved effective.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant and State opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the grounds that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged where the petitioners are directly charged by the complainant and that the accused had failed to prove any mala tide on the part of the complainant.
4. I have perused the record and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Keeping in view the nature of case, I would discuss it with two angles. Firstly the case of Ajmal Khan petitioner who is charged for murder of the deceased and Secondly, that of Gul Jehan who is charged for causing injury and attempting at the life of son of complainant, namely, Naveedullah Khan.
6. According to the F.I.R., these two accused along with other co-accused started firing. Ajmal Khan and Qayum fired at the deceased with which he was hit and died on the spot. Fida Hussain alias Fida and Gul Jehan fired at the complainant with which he was hit on his leg.
7. As far as the case of Ajmal Khan is concerned, he is directly charged for firing along with his co- accused Qayum over the deceased who had sustained numerous multiple injuries and the medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution against Ajmal Khan petitioner, therefore, in my opinion, he is not entitled to the concession of bail which is accordingly declined to him.
8. However, the case of Gul Jehan petitioner is on different footings. He is charged for attempting at the life of the complainant who has sustained only one injury on his leg while two accused are charged therefore, it is yet to be seen at trial as to with whose fire shot the victim was hit. Reference in this context may be given to unreported judgments of this Court in Bail Applications No,1467 of 2009 decided on 25-9-2009 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,236 of 2008 decided on 20-8-2008.
9. Keeping in view the above, discussion, I accept the bail prayer of the petitioner Gul Jehan and admit him to bail in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.