TAIMUR HUSSAIN and others vs THE STATE and anothers
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where five petitioners were accused of firing at the complainant party, causing injuries to three individuals. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, reasoning that while five persons were charged, no specific role was attributed to any individual, and the recovery of only a single empty cartridge from the scene contradicted the prosecution's claim of multiple assailants firing. Furthermore, the Court noted that the injuries were on non-vital parts and the lack of repeated firing cast doubt on the intent to commit murder. Consequently, the Court determined that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where prosecution allegations appear exaggerated and lack specific attribution of roles, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the recovery of a single empty cartridge in a case involving multiple accused and multiple injuries justify a finding of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when no specific role is attributed to any of the accused persons in the FIR?
- Can the absence of repeated firing by the accused, despite having the opportunity, cast doubt on the intention to commit murder for the purpose of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, J .---Through the present petition, petitioners (1) Moin Hussain (2)
Taimur Hussain (3) Jehangir Ali (4) Hafeez Hussain and (5) Shan Ali sons of Arbab Hussain seek bail in case F.I.R. No,441 dated 28-5-2012 registered for offence under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City District Hangu.
2. The complainant Ghanzafar Ali while reporting the crime in the emergency room of Civil Hospital Hangu alleged that his father had returned from Iran and people, were coming for his congratulation when in the meanwhile the accused Moin Hussain, Taimur Hussain, Jehangir Hussain alias Jehangir Ali, Hafeez Hussain and Shan Ali all sons of Arbab Hussain emerged on the scene and fired at us with which he, their father Hasrat Hussain and Ashraf Hussain were hit and sustained injuries where after all the accused fled away from the spot. Motive for the occurrence was stated to be their refusal to give hand of a girl to the accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the petitioners have been charged for the commission of alleged offence with no specific role attributed to any of them, which makes the case highly doubtful; that three persons have been shown injured by receiving single injury; that from the spot only one empty has been recovered, and one bullet mark has been shown on the wall in between the baitak and the house which makes the case one of further inquiry; that the injuries sustained by the victims are simple in nature and out of them only one victim has received injury on non-vital part of his body; that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioners; no independent witness has been cited to have witnessed the crime though the occurrence has been shown taken place in a thickly populated area; that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account and that the motive has also not been established, thus, in the above facts and circumstances the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant while refuting the arguments from other side contended that the petitioners have been directly nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For firing at the complainant party causing injuries to three persons, which is corroborated by the recovery of blood stained earth and crime empty from the spot, therefore, on the available record the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned State counsel supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as the learned State counsel assisted the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Without touching the merits of the case of the prosecution or the plea of defence, suffice it to say that the complainant had charged five persons for effectively firing at them but no specific role has been attributed to anyone. The firing has simultaneously been attributed to all the five persons but only a single injury has been caused to three victims and that too on non-vital part except one.
Furthermore only one empty has been recovered from the spot which indicates that the charge has been exaggerated. The accused had not repeated the shot although the victims were at their mercy which cast doubts of their intention to kill the complainant party. The factum of intention to commit murder of the victims requires further probe in view of the facts and circumstances of the case brought on record. Investigation in the case has already been completed and the accused- petitioners are no more required for further investigation, hence their case is that of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And they are entitled to the concession of bail.
7. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and the accused-petitioners are admitted to bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
8. Before parting with this judgment I must clarify that the observations made above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either side at the trial.
' The above are the reasons of my short order announced on 30-7-2012.