GUL RAZIM and 2 others vs The STATE and another
Through this criminal petition, the accused petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1096 dated 10-12-2012 registered under sections 324, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Cantt. D.I. Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the direct charge, corroborative medical evidence, and a strong motive of blood feud. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were directly charged by name in a broad-daylight incident, supported by corroborative medico-legal reports and a motive, thereby prima facie connecting them to the crime which fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that direct attribution, corroboration, and applicability of the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to pre-trial bail at the tentative assessment stage.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when directly charged with firearm injuries in a broad-daylight incident supported by medico-legal reports?
- Does a strong motive of previous blood feud preclude the argument of a false charge at the bail stage?
- Does an offense carrying a punishment of up to ten years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the effect of tentative assessment of material on the merits of the trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAH JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA, J.---Through the instant petition, the accused/petitioners, namely, Gul Razirn, Abdul Ghafoor and Shehr Yar, seek their release on bail in case F.I.R. No.1096 dated 10-12-2012 under sections 324/427/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Cantt. D.I.Khan.
2. According to the first information report lodged by the complainant Gula Jan, he being a Lawyer by profession was returning home in a motorcar along with his agent/munshi Ehtesham and a small son named Adil Khan aged about 8/9 years after attending his case under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. In the court of Additional Sessions Judge-II D.I.Khan. When reached near Gillani town, a white colour motorcar was already standing there, out of which the accused/respondents along with an unknown person duly armed with firearms got down and fired at them with which they were injured and the motorcar was damaged. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the spot in the said motorcar. Motive for the offence was given to be previous blood feud between the parties.
3. Having heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the materials available on file leads me to hold that the accused/petitioners have been directly charged by the complainant for attempting at the lives of three persons effectively, i.e. The complainant, his minor son and agent/Munshi. Moreover, the occurrence has taken place in a broad-day light, the parties are know to each other and thus question of mistaken identity does not arise at the moment.
Furthermore, the accusation against the accused/petitioners is also backed by a strong motive of blood feud between the parties, therefore, the element of false charge is also not available in the instant case presently. Medico-legal Reports of the three victims further corroborate the version of the complainant. Thus there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused/petitioners are connected with the offence charged with, punishment for which is ten years and as such the case falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And tentative assessm ent of the materials so far brought on record, prima facie, connect the accused/petitioners with the commission of the offence. However, the above observations are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing or effect on the conclusion drawn at the time of conclusion of the case by the trial Court and it shall be decided on its own merits.
4. For the reasons stated above, I find no substance in this bail petition which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 161