GHUFRAN AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Ghufran Ahmed, who was booked under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged assault. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the allegations in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) and the medical evidence presented. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to a prior dispute with the complainant, and that the medical report indicated only minor injuries, which would likely reduce the charge to a bailable offence under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that a tentative assessment of the record revealed that the injuries were minor and that the applicant had also lodged a cross-F.I.R. against the complainant, suggesting the possibility of false implication. Consequently, the Court determined that the case required further enquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The applicant was admitted to bail upon furnishing solvent surety, establishing the principle that where medical evidence contradicts the gravity of the charged offence and cross-litigation exists, a case for further enquiry is made out.
- Does the existence of a cross-F.I.R. between parties constitute grounds for further enquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a court grant bail when medical evidence suggests the injuries sustained do not support the gravity of the offence charged in the F.I.R.?
- Is a case for further enquiry established when the allegations in the F.I.R. are contradicted by the medical report?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Applicant Ghufran Ahmed son of Ehsan Ahmed is booked in Crime No,336 of 2011 at Police Station North Nazimabad dated 27-7-2011 registered under sections 324/34, P. P . C .
2. In the first place the applicant applied for bail before II-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi- Central, who vide her order dated 5-8-2011 dismissed the bail application. Against the aforesaid order present bail application has been filed.
3. Facts as set out in the F.I.R. Are that on 27-7-2011 complainant Muhammad Arif son of Muhammad Jamal lodged F.I.R. Stating therein that 12-30 a.m. He along with his friend Tanveer son of Abdul Latif was sitting in Phool Park situated in Block 5-B, Paposh Nagar, Karachi, his mohalla boys namely (1) Ghazanfar, (2) Imran and (3) Rana Saleem due to unknown reasons started beating with intention to kill him. He further stated that Ghufran hit block on his head while Imran beaten him with kicks and fists and then Rana Saleem hit pistol butt on his face and head and then put pistol on his head and when complainant pushed him, he fired at him but the complainant rescued himself. In the meantime mohalla persons gathered on the shouting of Tanveer and hearing firing whereupon Rana Saleem and Imran escaped from the spot, hence the F.I.R. Was lodged against them.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as one day prior to the alleged incident the complainant has snatched an amount of Rs,36,000 and Nokia Mobile Phone from the applicant for which present applicant approached the police station for lodging of F.I.R. But his F.I.R. Was not registered but only a non-cognizable report was entered by the police. Learned counsel says that only allegation levelled against the present applicant in the F.I.R. Is that the applicant hit a block on the head of complainant. Learned counsel says that medical report shows three minor injuries to the complainant which at best bring the case under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And present applicant cannot be charged under section 324, P.P.C. In the circumstances of the case. He further says that offence under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. Is bailable offence. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is allegation in the F.I.R. That firing was made by the accused party upon the complainant but no empty was recovered by the police from the place of incident. He says that case of applicant requires further enquiry and he may be enlarged on bail.
' Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed on record a photocopy of F.1.R. No,380 of 2011 registered at Police Station North Nazimabad, Karachi, against the complainant under sections 392/397/337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/34. Learned counsel says that initially the police has registered the grievance as non-cognizable matter but subsequently it was converted into F . I. R.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.-G. Has formally opposed the grant of bail as the name of applicant appears in the F.I.R. And as such he is not entitled to bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. A tentative assessm ent of the record shows that only allegation against the applicant is that he has hit the block on the head of the complainant and other have also caused injuries to him on his head with pistol butt but an examination of medical report shows that only three minor injuries have been sustained by the complainant. Applicant has also lodged an F.I.R. Against the complainant and in such circumstances false implication in this case cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, in my view the case of the applicant requires further enquiry in terms of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.