MUHAMMAD ASIR vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 324 and 337F(ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on grounds that co-accused were declared innocent, the injuries sustained were superficial, the weapon recovered (a 'Churri') differed from the one mentioned in the F.I.R., and the petitioner had no prior criminal record. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the petitioner's nomination in the F.I.R., the recovery of the weapon, and the severity of the offence. The Court held that the intent to commit a murderous assault required further inquiry, noting that despite the petitioner allegedly being armed, only minor injuries were inflicted. Furthermore, the Court observed that the maximum punishments for the specific injuries sustained were relatively low. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of the recovery and the intent behind the assault were matters to be determined during the trial, and that the observations made were tentative and should not prejudice the trial court.
- Whether the intent to commit a murderous assault under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes a matter of further inquiry when only superficial injuries are caused?
- Does the absence of a previous criminal record and the duration of incarceration justify the grant of post-arrest bail in cases involving non-fatal injuries?
- Can the discrepancy between the weapon mentioned in the F.I.R. and the weapon recovered be considered a ground for bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ,. J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,408 dated 16-7-2011 under sections 324 and 337F(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Khayali District Gujranwala.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two co-accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent during the investigation while disbelieving the version given in the F.I.R.; that both the injuries on the person of the injured were superficial injuries and no surgical procedure was done; that the injury No,1 has been declared as Jurh Jaifah Damiyah whereas the injury No,2 has been declared as Jurh Jaifah Badiah for which, maximum punishment of one year and three years respectively has been provided. Further contends that F.I.R. Does not disclose the intention to commit murder of the injured, as he was at the mercy of the accused but he received only superficial injuries; that dagger mentioned in the F.I.R. Has not been recovered rather a "Churri" has been shown to be recovered; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29-7-2011 and there is no previous criminal record against him.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injuries on the person of the injured who was medically examined on the same day. Further contends that there is no mala fide or ill will on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that recovery of weapon of offence has been effected form the petitioner; that double punishment has been provided for the offence under section 324, P.P.C., one for the murderous assault and the other for the hurt caused; that the offence against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that Challan has already been submitted in the court and case is at the stage of evidence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The Medico-legal Report of the injured available on the record does not disclose the duration of the injuries and two minor injuries allegedly caused by the petitioner on the person of the injured have been declared as Jurh Jaifah Damiyah and Jurh Jaifah Badiah for which maximum punishment of one year and three years respectively has been provided. The question of intention of the petitioner to commit murderous assault on the injured is a matter of further inquiry, as no one was there to save the injured from the petitioner: who was allegedly armed with a dagger but no serious injury has been caused to him. The evidentiary value of recovery of "Churri" is also to be determined by the learned trial court at the time of trial. The investigating officer present in Court after consulting the record confirms that the petitioner has no previous criminal record and he is behind the bars since 29-7-2011. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the learned trial court in any manner whatsoever.