This matter concerned a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mumtaz, in a case registered under Section 302/34, P.P.C., for the alleged murder of Muhammad Mumtaz. The petitioner was accused of firing a rifle, causing a fatal injury. The core legal question revolved around whether bail should be granted due to an alleged conflict between the medical evidence, which suggested a pellet wound, and the ocular account, which stated the petitioner used a rifle. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the commencement of the trial should not bar the grant of bail if a case was otherwise made out. The Supreme Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that while the commencement of trial is not an absolute bar to bail, the argument regarding the conflict between medical and ocular evidence required a deeper appraisal of evidence, which is not warranted at the bail stage. The Court found that, prima facie, the petitioner was connected with the alleged offence.
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,20 dated 25-1-2008 under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Chenab Nagar, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, wherein the allegation against the petitioner is that on the fateful day and time he armed with a rifle and his co-accused armed with a double barreled gun attacked Muhammad Mumtaz. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he fired at Muhammad Mumtaz which hit on his right flank and the same proved fatal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is a conflict between the medical evidence and ocular account inasmuch as although the petitioner as per the F.I.R. Was allegedly armed with a rifle yet the injury received by the deceased appears to be a pallet wound.
Refers to a judgment of this Court reported as "Mst. Irshad Begum v. Muhammad Afzal and another (1985 SCM R 1691)" to contend that commencement of trial may not be treated as a bar for the grant of bail if the case is otherwise made out.
3. There is no cavil "to the proposition and the ratio laid down in the afore-referred precedent case law. However, having gone through the F.I.R. And the allegations levelled against the petitioner, prima facie, he is connected with the alleged offence and the argument qua the conflict between medical evidence and the ocular account cannot be appreciated without a deeper appraisal of evidence which is not warranted at bail stage.
4. In the afore-referred circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and .