MUHAMMAD NAVEED vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Naveed in relation to FIR No. 227 registered under Section 324/337-F(vi)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Kot, District Narowal, concerning a murderous assault involving a firearm injury. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injury inflicted, the suppression of cross-version injuries sustained by the petitioner's brother, and the completion of the investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that where an accused is alleged to have caused a firearm injury to a non-vital part of the body and a cross-version discloses injuries sustained by the opposing side that were suppressed in the initial FIR, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly when the accused is no longer required for investigation.
- Whether an accused who causes a firearm injury to a non-vital part of the body is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party in a cross-version bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for the purpose of investigation and the trial has commenced?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Naveed, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 227 dated 9.11.2010 registered under Section 324/337-F (vi)/34PPCat Police Station Noor Kot , District Narowal. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused made a murderous assault on Atif and caused him a fire-arm injury.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that this case was registered against Amin and Naveed, the present petitioner; that Muhammad Amin has been found innocent during the course of investigation; that as per FIR, the allegation against the petition is that he fired at Atif and bullet hit on the lower part of is left leg; that there is no allegation of repetition of firing against the petitioner; that as a matter of fact, real brother of the petitioner namely, Muhammad Amin was also injured in this case and his injuries have been suppressed by the complainant , in the FIR, however, a cross-version was also registered; that said Muhammad Amin was medically examined on the same day and the doctor who examined him noted two injuries on his person which were caused by blunt weapon.
3. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR; that the injured was go medically examined prompt that recovery of pistol has been effected form the petitioner, however, learned DDPP states that cross-version against the complainant is registered as Muhammad Amin was also injured in this case and was medically examined on the same day through the police.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
5. The case was registered against two persons namely Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Naveed the petitioner, Muhammad Amin was also injured in this case and his injuries have been suppressed in the FIR. He was medically examined on the same date 8.11.2010 through police and the doctor noted two injuries in his person. The petitioner is accused of causing fire-arm injury on the right leg of Atif injured. In " Muhammad Umar versus The State and another" (PLD 2004 SC 477) in a similar situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under: We have heard learned counsel for the both the sides and are also gone through the record particularly the medical certificate. A perusal whereof indicates that allegedly the petitioner fired upon the outer side of the right leg's middle part of the injured Shahid Iqbal, therefore, prima facie, we are of the opinion that he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured Shahid Iqbal for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Be that as it may, now the challan has been submitted , trail has commenced, petitioner is in custody with effect from the date of his arrest and is no more required for the purpose of investigation of the case, therefore no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody."
The petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for the purpose of investigation. In the circumstances, the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.