GULZAR And Another vs THE STATE And Another
This judgment addresses a post-arrest bail application filed by accused/petitioners Gulzar and Shah Nawaz, who were charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an attempted murder by firing. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail in circumstances involving a promptly lodged FIR, specific injuries on a vital organ, ocular testimony, and weapon recovery. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that a tentative assessment of the material on record prima facie connected the accused with the commission of the offence. The Court established that a prompt FIR lodged within one hour over a distance of 27-28 kilometers minimized the chance of false implication; daylight occurrence involving co-villagers ruled out mistaken identity; the presence of an injury on a vital part (the chest) manifested homicidal intention; and the testimony of the stamped injured witness corroborated by eyewitnesses and weapon recovery sufficiently disentitled the accused to bail at this stage.
- Does an injury caused to a vital part of the body, such as the chest, reflect prima facie intention to kill for the purposes of deciding a bail application under Section 324 PPC?
- Whether the prompt lodging of an FIR in the shape of a Murasila minimizes the possibility of false implication and consultation?
- Can mistaken identity be validly argued when the occurrence takes place in broad daylight and the parties are co-villagers already known to each other?
- Is bail liable to be refused where ocular evidence of an injured witness is supported by independent eyewitnesses and weapon recovery?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
JUDGMENT ATTAULLAH KHAN, f.---Gulzar son of Faraz and Shah Nawaz son of Haq Nawaz accused/petitioners, charged in case F.I.R. No.394 dated 1-12-2010 of Police station Saddar, District D.I. Khan, under Sections 324/34, P.P.C., has filed this application for his release on bail.
2. Succinct facts according to the F.I.R. Are that complainant Muhammad Ismail on 18-12-2010 at 10-00 reported in injured condition to the local police in Emergency Room of Civil Hospital, D.I.Khan that on the eventful day at about 09-00 hours, he was going to D.I.Khan from his home, when he reached at Adda Band Korai when Gulzar and Shah Nawaz his co-villagers came duly armed with pistols and opened fire at him. Due to their firing he was hit and injured. The occurrence was witnessed by persons present on the Adda. The motive was blood feud enmity and on his report the above mentioned case F.I.R. Was chalked out.
3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioners argued that there is no independent witness and no specific role has been attributed to two of the accused.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainant submitted that empties and pistol has been recovered. The F.I.R. Is promptly lodged and the injury caused by the injured is on vital part of the body. There is ocular evidence to support the prosecution case.
5. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence had taken place on 18-12-2010 at 9-00 hours while the report was made at 10.00 hours, within one hour after the occurrence. The report was recorded in the shape of Murasila in the hospital. The distance between place of occurrence and hospital is about 27/28 kilometers. This distance between place of 'occurrence and hospital is sufficient to be covered within one hour. So prima facie case is registered within reasonable time.
7. Furthermore, medical report reveals that the injury caused by the accused is on chest which is on vital part of the body which clearly reflects the intention of the accused to kill the complainant.
Both the accused have been charged for firing at complainant with pistols which are of.30 bore.
The pistol was also recovered on 6-1-2011 from accused/petitioner Gulzar. This recovery of pistol also supports the prosecution case againq the accused/ petitioners. The injured has also witnessed the occurrence and the stamp of injury on his body is itself sufficient to prove his presence on the spot. Besides him Fazal-urRahman and Hafiz Ghulam Sadiq have also seen the occurrence.
8. As far as objection of learned counsel of accused/petitioners in respect of identification is concerned it is of no avail because the accused were already known to the complainant and therefore there is no chance of misidentification. It is also daylight occurrence. The motive has also been given in the F.I.R. As previous enmity.
9. In short the accused/petitioners have been charged in promptly lodged F.I.R. Directly which has minimized the chance of false implication. The ocular evidence in shape of statements of complainant, Fazal-ur-Rahman and Hafiz Ghulam Sadiq connect both the accused/ petitioners with commission of offence. One.30 bore pistol has also been recovered from one of the accused/petitioners. The injury is on vital part of the body of the injured.
10. After the tentative assessm ent of evidence and material available on file, the accused/petitioners are connected with the offence for which they are charged, unless rebutted at the trial stage.
11. In such.. Circumstances I find no merit in this application for bail which is accordingly dismissed.
12. This order will not effect the trial..
Cited by 1 case
- Dado Adam son of Muhammad Qasim Abbasi vs The State 2021 SHC 798