MUSHTAQ AHMAD vs The STATE and anothers
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of F.I.R. No. 109 of 2012 registered under sections 148, 149, 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Line, Gujrat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the firearm injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body and fell under a lesser penal provision, despite his involvement in previous related criminal cases and allegations of hampering the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's involvement in multiple connected criminal cases against the complainant and his attempts to delay the ongoing trial disentitled him to discretionary relief, and that the case did not warrant further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right based on poor marksmanship or targeting a non-vital body part when antecedent criminal conduct and deliberate delaying tactics in the trial are established.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail merely because the firearm injury was sustained on a non-vital part of the body?
- Does involvement in multiple previous criminal cases against the same complainant preclude the grant of bail?
- Can deliberate delaying tactics and non-cooperation by the defence in an ongoing trial serve as grounds for refusing bail?
- Does the case of an accused who fired a single non-vital shot constitute a matter for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when antecedent hostility is proven?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Mushtaq Ahmad (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,109 of 2012 dated 10-2-2012 registered for offences under sections 149, 324, 148, P.P.C. At Police Station Civil Line (Gujrat).
2.. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with rifle .99 MM, in the company of his armed co-accused launched an attack during the course of which, petitioner fired a shot which landed at the left calf of Muhammad Zahid. The motive relates to previous litigation between the parties.
3. The MLR of Muhammad Nawaz injured reveals one firearm injury on the 'left middle leg, medial side' which was declared as Ghayrjaifah mutulahimah (337-F(iii), P.P.C.), punishable with three years' imprisonment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not cause any injury on the vital part of the body of the injured and in such a situation, application of section 324, P.P.C. Is open to a serious question; the petitioner was taken into custody on 30-3-2012 and he has been languishing in jail ever-since.
5. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes by contending that the instant case is in fact an extension of previous two cases lodged at the instance of Muhammad Aslam (complainant) which included case F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 dated 10-12- 2011 under sections 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. And case F.I.R. No,206 of 2012 dated 5-8-2012 for offences under sections 337-1-1(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Both registered at Police Station Lorry Adda Gujrat where it the petitioner is a nominated accused; the trial has commenced and petitioner hampered it through various tactics. Lastly submits that the offence committed by the petitioner catches the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. (sic) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner though, did not repeat the fire-shot at the time of occurrence nor he aimed at any vital part of the body of Muhammad Zahid injured yet, it cannot be easily overlooked that the petitioner is a nominated accused of previously lodged case F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 (supra) got registered by one Mirza Tahir Hussain wherein Muhammad Aslam (complainant) is a witness against him for the charge of abetment. Besides, the petitioner is also involved in case F.I.R. No,206 of 2012 (supra) with the allegation that he along with his co-accused indiscriminately fired at the house of Muhammad Aslam (complainant), in the back-drop of case F.I.R., 315 of 2011 (ante). The instant F.I.R. Case wherein, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail is infact, sandwiched between above noted two cases, as F.I.R. No,315 of 2011 was recorded on 10-12-2011 and F.I.R. No, 206/12 was recorded on 5-8-2012 as regards the date of registration of case F.I.R. No,109 of 2012 (supra) which falls on 10-2-2012. It appears that the petitioner and his co-accused are after Muhammad Aslam complainant, who is a witness against them, and they intend to hunt him at any cost so as to stop him from deposing against them. The petitioner cannot ask for a premium for his poor-marksmanship for having fired only once at a 'non vital part' of the body of the injured. It has been brought to the knowledge of this Court that the trial has commenced and prosecution witnesses have been regularly appearing before the trial court but for cooperation of the defence, the trial of the accused/petitioner has not shown substantial progress. Learned trial court could only record examined-in-chief of Muhammad Aslam (complainant) as P.W. I and Zahid Ali (injured) as P.W.2 on 27-11-2012, as the learned defence counsel was not available. The hamper the proceedings of the trial is not a likeable idea. The attending circumstances of the case do not permit me to hold that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt, as required by section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
' For the reasons, recorded hereinabove, I am not inclined to accept this application which is dismissed accordingly.