MUHAMMAD TANAZIR vs THE STATE And Another
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Tanazir, in relation to F.I.R. No. 693 of 2009, registered for offences under sections 341, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a firearm, attempted to kill the complainant. The petitioner contended that he was innocent, that the medico-legal report contradicted the F.I.R., and that the offence under section 324 was not attracted. Upon review, the Court noted a significant discrepancy: the complainant alleged the petitioner fired from outside a car, with the bullet passing through the door, yet the medico-legal report indicated blackening around the entry wound, which is inconsistent with such a trajectory. Furthermore, no empty casings were recovered from the scene, and the injury was sustained on a non-vital part of the body. Holding that these inconsistencies rendered the case one of further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail, noting that the petitioner's continued detention would serve no useful purpose as the investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted.
- Does a contradiction between the F.I.R. version and the medico-legal report regarding the nature of the injury constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is the absence of recovered empty casings from the crime scene a relevant factor in determining the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the fact that an injury was sustained on a non-vital part of the body justify the grant of bail in an attempted murder case?
- Section 341, 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.693 of 2009 dated 6-9-2009 for offences under sections 341/324/34, P.P.C. Registered with police station Westridge, Rawalpindi.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused armed with fire-arms made an attempt to kill the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent, he has not committed any offence Further contends that the medico legal report contradicts the contents of F.]`..R. The provision of section 324, P.P.C. Does not attract. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than six months. He is no more required by the police, therefore, the petitioner be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be dismissed.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that while standing outside the car, he fired at the complainant. The bullet crossed the door of the car and hit on the thigh of the complainant and also injured the other legs.
7. The complainant was examined on the same day i.e. 6-9-2009 at 12-45 a.m. According to the medico legal report, there was lacerated entry wound of firearm on the right thigh of the complainant and there was also blackening around the entry wound. According to the version of the complainant, the petitioner fired while standing outside the car and the bullet hit the complainant after .Passing through the door of vehicle. If the circumstances would be such there would have no blackening around the entry wound of the complainant. The Investigating Officer has admitted that no empty was recovered from the place on occurrence. The petitioner was arrested on 3-10-2009 a period of more than 6-months have lapsed. The alleged bullet hit on the non-vital part of the complainant. Challan of the case has already been submitted in the court.
The petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further detention will not serve any useful purposes: Such a glaring conflict between the contents of F.I.R. And MLR makes the case of the petitioner of further inquiry. Resultantly, the petitioner is allowed bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.