BASHIR AHMAD vs STATE, etc
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of causing injury to the complainant with a firearm. The core legal question was whether, given the specific allegations and the nature of the injuries, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, particularly considering the arguments regarding the applicability of Section 324 and the lack of attributed motive. The Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry because the specific role attributed to him—causing injury to a non-vital part of the body—raised questions about the existence of the necessary intention to kill, especially since the petitioner did not repeat the fire. Furthermore, the Court noted that the investigation was complete, the petitioner had been incarcerated for nine months without trial progress, and he was a first-time offender. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, establishing that where the intent to commit murder is ambiguous and the injury is on a non-vital part, the case may fall under the category of further inquiry.
- Does an injury caused to a non-vital part of the body by a firearm automatically satisfy the requirements of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a bail petition be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period without trial progress?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the specific role of the accused in causing a particular injury is contested by the presence of co-accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Complainant of the case is in Jail and has been duly served through Superintendent New Central Jail, Multan but despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the complainant. This is bail after arrest which could not be kept pending for an indefinite period, therefore, same is going to be decided after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and in view of the available record.
2. Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 19/2012 registered under Sections 324/148/149, PPC at Police Station Sadar Jilalpur Pirwala, Multan.
3. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that on the fateful day he along with co-accused injured the complainant with their respective weapons. Role attributed to the petitioner is that he made a fire shot with repeater .12-bore which hit on the left hand's fingers of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has falsely been involved in this case. Further submitted that in the circumstances of the case, Section 324 does not attract to the extent. of petitioner, motive is not attributed to him and nothing has been recovered from him which makes out the case of petitioner one of further inquiry. Lastly submitted that investigation of the case is complete, petitioner is behind the bars since arrest and is no more required for the purpose of investigation, and even he is previous non convict.
5. On the other hand, learned, AAG has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific allegation and the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause, therefore, is not entitled for the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AAG and perused the record.
7. Although the petitioner has been charged under Section 324, PPC but as per FIR, one injury by repeater on the left thigh of complainant is alleged against Tanvir Sheikh, co-accused of the petitioner to whom motive is also attributed and second injury on the fingers of left hand is attributed to petitioner with repeater. Whether these injuries are result of the fire of petitioner or from the fire of the co-accused, Tanvir Sheikh, require further inquiry. Even otherwise, as injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body and whether the intention to kill exists will be decided by the learned trial Court as petitioner has not repeated the second fire. Moreover, as argued, motive is not attributed to the petitioner; he is behind the bars for more than last nine months without any progress in trial. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.