GHULAM FARID vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under sections 324, 447, 427, 342, 148, 149, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving alleged trespass, mischief, and attempted murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of attempted murder, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the petitioner's status as an absconder. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the observation that despite the complainant and his son being allegedly overpowered by armed individuals, they sustained no injuries, which cast doubt on the intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd under section 324, thus requiring further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court determined that the remaining offences were bailable and that mere absconsion does not justify withholding bail when the case is otherwise meritorious. The key principle laid down is that the absence of injuries in an alleged attempted murder case necessitates further probe into the intent, and absconsion alone is insufficient to deny bail where the merits of the case otherwise support it.
- Does the absence of injuries in an alleged attempted murder case necessitate further inquiry into the intent of the accused?
- Is mere absconsion sufficient grounds to withhold bail when the case is otherwise meritorious?
- Does the lack of injury to victims in an armed confrontation negate the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,9 of 2004 dated 23- 8-2004 under sections 324/ 447/427/342/148/149/506 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station BMP Phugla District D.G. Khan.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version is that the petitioner while armed with fire arm along with other co-accused who are owners of land in adjacent village, made trespass in his land, caused damage to the water course and made firing in order to cause Qatl-e-Amd of the complainant and Muhammad Anwar but they remained safe as they had taken shelter behind the stones. It is further stated that the petitioner and others over powered the complainant and Muhammad Anwar, tied them and kept under hostage in order to commit mischief by damaging the watercourse worth Rs,5,000 and by cutting the trees worth Rs,25,000 was committed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been roped in the false case with malice; that he is about 65 years old and was doing labour in Balochistan so had no knowledge about the registration of the case and as such was not a wilful absconder; that there is an inordinate delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. Which is not explained; that no person sustained injury during the occurrence so commission of offence punishable under section 324, P.P.C. Is not made out; that the offence punishable under sections 447/427/342/506/148/ 149, P.P.C. Is bailable.
4. Learned DPG has vehemently opposed the bail petition. It is contended that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role; that he and co-accused made indiscriminate firing in order to cause Qatl-e-amd of two persons so the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are clearly attracted and the petitioner remained absconder for a long period so is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Allegedly the complainant and his son were overpowered and tied down but they did not receive any injury during the occurrence although they were at the mercy of the petitioner and others, who were allegedly armed with fire-arms and this fact alone is sufficient to show that there was no intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd on the part of the petitioner and others and from this angle the case to the extent of commission of offence under section 324, P.P.C. Clearly needs further probe and inquiry. The remaining offences allegedly committed by the petitioner are bailable. Mere absconsion is not sufficient to withhold the bail which is made out on merits. According to I.D. Card of the petitioner he is more than 65 years old and is no more required for further investigation.
6. For the reasons supra, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.