KAMRAN vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Kamran, who was charged in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 452, 337-A(iii), and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the discrepancies between the medical evidence and the complainant's statement, the absence of independent witnesses in a populated area, and the nature of the alleged provocation. The court held that the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. It noted that the complainant did not mention broken teeth in the F.I.R., the alleged weapon (Kassi) was not recovered, and no independent witnesses from the locality were examined. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case suffers from material contradictions between the medical evidence and the F.I.R., and lacks independent corroboration in a case of sudden provocation, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail for further inquiry.
- Does a contradiction between the medical report and the complainant's statement in the F.I.R. entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is the absence of independent witnesses in a thickly populated area a ground for granting bail?
- Does the failure to recover the alleged weapon of offense justify a finding that a case requires further inquiry?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' KHLAID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Petitioner, namely, Kamran, having failed to secure his release on bail in the lower Court, have approached this Court for seeking the same relief.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that the accused/petitioner was charged in case F.I.R. No,405 dated 30-6-2011 registered under sections 452/337-A(iii)/337-F(i), P.P.C. Police Station, Cantt: D.I.
Khan. In the F.I.R. The accused/petitioner was charged by the complainant for causing injury to him and disgracing his wife. As per medical report two injuries have been mentioned on the person of complainant. One injury is on right upper lip with abrasion over inner aspect of right upper lip with missing right upper two premolar with fresh bleeding and second is abrasion over right ankle joint with swelling. The kind of weapon used is blunt as per medical report.
3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner contended that neither any blood from the spot nor blood stained cloth has been recovered from the complainant. He further argued that there is nothing on record that whether any blood is oozing from the injury not complainant has mentioned in his statement that his teeth have been brockened, therefore, the medical evidence and the statement of complainant are contradictory. He also argued that the place where the occurrence took place is thickly populated area and no one from the locality has been associated as witness in the present case. He urged that the occurrence is on the basis of sudden provocation as admitted by complainant himself. He further submitted that it is the case of further inquiry and accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession, of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant argued that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. He contended that the report was promptly lodged and being daylight occurrence the accused/petitioner was identified by complainant, therefore, he is not entitled to cession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that there was no previous enmity between the parties and the occurrence is based on sudden provocation and in the F.I.R. The complainant has not stated that his teeth has been broken and he is only charged the accuse/petitioner for giving fist and kick blows. The injury caused to the complainant by blunt weapon. The complainant has alleged that the accused/petitioner has given Kassi blow to him but no Kassi has been recovered from the accused petitioner neither he same has been mentioned in the site plan. It is an admitted fact that no person from the locality being independent witness has been examined by the Investigating Officer.
7. In the light of the above circumstances, the case of accused/ petitioner requires further inquiry into his guilt Therefore, he is allowed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate D.I. Khan.