MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias BHOLA vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Ramzan alias Bhola, in a case registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of alleged false implication, self-inflicted injury, and lack of trial progress. The State and the complainant opposed the application, highlighting the petitioner's specific role in causing a firearm injury, the corroborating medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon of offense, and the petitioner's status as an absconder for ten months. The Court examined the record and noted that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the specific role attributed to the petitioner, supported by medical reports and witness statements, coupled with the petitioner's history of abscondence and the ongoing trial, disentitled him to the concession of bail. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and limited to the bail proceedings.
- Does an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused who has remained a fugitive from law for a significant period be granted post-arrest bail?
- Is bail appropriate where the prosecution has established a specific role for the accused supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offense?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Ramzan alias Bhola seeks post arrest bail in case FIR- No, 803 dated 26.10.2010 under Sections 324/34, PPC registered at Police Station Khurrianwala District Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that case against the petitioner is totally false and fabricated that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner on the person of injured is self- inflicted and the medical evidence has been procured in connivance with the police and the Medical Officer. Further contends that the complainant and the injured are desperate criminals and eight case; have been registered against him; that there is no allegation of repetition of the fire shot and the alleged injury is on the non-vital part of the body of injured Kamran Rafique. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 25.08.2011 without any substantive progress in his trial.
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 FIR with a specific role of causing a fire-arm injury on the right thigh of the injured; that Section 324, PPC entails double punishment, one for the attempt to commit murder and the second for the hurt caused. Further contends that the petitioner was medically examined on the day of occurrence and the medical evidence fully corroborates the version given in the FIR; that the offence against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner remained absconder for a period of about eleven months, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing a fire-arm injury on the right thigh of injured Kamran Rafique. The injured was medically examined on the day of occurrence without any delay and the Medico Legal Report corroborates the allegation levelled against the petitioner. The statements of injured Kamran Rafique and other witnesses namely Muhammad Sajjad and Aamir Hussain recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. further strengthen the version of the complainant. The weapon of offence i,e, 12-bore repeater pump action gun has also been effected from the petitioner. There is no enmity between the witnesses and the petitioner for his false implication in this case. Double punishment has been provided in Section 324, PPC, one for the attempt to commit murder and the other for the hurt caused. Examination-in-chief of three prosecution witnesses has already been recorded and petitioner is avoiding the trial, as cross- examination of these witnesses has been reserved since 23.12.2011. The offence against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He also remained fugitive from law for about ten months for which no plausible explanation has been submitted.
In view of the above, no case for bail after arrest is made out in favour of the petitioner and this bail petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.