MUMTAZ vs THE STATE
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.
- section 302/34, P.P.C.
ORDER
' 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 .
Cited by 22 cases
- Jumoon s/o Kareem Rahimoon and others vs The State and others 2025 SHC MPK 2058
- Jumoon Versus State 2026 YLR 158
- Bilal Sikandar vs The State and another 2024 LHC 3700, PLJ 2024 Cr.C. 1083, 2025 YLR 152
- Anwar Ali and another vs The State 2024 MLD 1848
- Sajjad Ahmad vs State 2023 PHC 12
- Sajjad Ahmed vs The State and another 2023 PCRLJ 1508
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State 2023 YLR 581
- ALI GUL Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 67
- Khamisa and 2 others vs The State 2021 YLR 347
- Nawab Ali and 8 others vs State PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1537
- Nawab Ali and others vs State PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1319
- Amir Hamza vs The State etc 2019 LHC 1756, PLJ 2019 Cr.C. 1191
- AMIR HAMZA Versus State 2019 YLRN 57
- GANGOO MAL and others vs The STATE 2019 MLD 1569
- SAFAIDULLAH SHAH Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 117
- Rooh Niaz vs The State etc 2018 PHC 1658
- ROOH NIAZ Versus LAL ZAIB KHAN 2018 YLRN 249
- SALIM Versus State 2018 YLRN 196
- AHSAN BASHIR vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 741
- ABDUL LATIF vs The STATE and another 2015 P Cr. L J 1083
- WAZIR MUHAMMAD vs The STATE 2015 YLR 2461
- KAMRAN vs Haji MUHAMMAD ZAHIR KHAN and another 2015 P Cr. L J 402