NAZIR vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered against the petitioner, Nazir, for the alleged murder of Manzoor Ahmad. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner struck the deceased with a hatchet behind the left ear. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the medical evidence (postmortem report) did not corroborate the ocular account, thereby creating a case for further inquiry. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's nomination in the F.I.R. and the presence of multiple injuries on the deceased, arguing that evaluating these discrepancies would require a deep analysis of the merits, which is premature at the bail stage. The Court held that the discrepancy between the ocular account and the postmortem report regarding the specific injury ascribed to the petitioner constitutes a case for further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the commencement of a trial is not a bar to granting bail under the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, emphasizing that its observations were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.
- Does a discrepancy between the ocular account and the medical evidence in a murder case constitute a ground for further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Does the commencement of a trial prohibit the court from granting bail to an accused under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted at any stage of the proceedings prior to the pronouncement of judgment?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Petitioner Nazir seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him and three others for the alleged murder of Manzoor Ahmad on the complaint of Muhammad Hayat.
2. Specific ascription against the petitioner is that he was holding a hatchet, gave a blow with the same hitting behind the left ear of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such injury exits as per postmortem report of the deceased and unliking of the ocular account with medical evidence which cannot be abridged, makes out a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner and that he is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And the dimension of the injury on the occipital region of the deceased, prima facie, shows that it was not the result of specific blow and might be more than one, in this way, when the petitioner had held a hatchet and the injury has been found to have been caused with a sharp-edged weapon and to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, would amount to compel the Court to go deep in the merits of the case and this practice is not desirable at this stage. Learned counsel for the complainant has also referred the injury sheet of the deceased, according to which, more than two injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Lastly it has been submitted that the trial has commenced and it would be better to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It has been noticed that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And the role of causing injury ascribed to him has not been found in the Postmortem Examination Report and prima facie, there is incoherence in between the ocular and medical evidence and this fact also makes out a case of further inquiry for grant of bail to the petitioner.
7. Mere commencing of trial by itself is no ground for refusing bail, as, phraseology of subsection
(4) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is very much clear that the bail can be granted at any stage even before the pronouncement of the judgment.
8. For what has been discussed above, instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail provided his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. Observations mentioned op-cit shall be regarded as tentative in nature.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhsin Islam & salih Islam vs the State & others 2017 PHC 567
- MUHSIN ISLAM and another vs The STATE and 2 others 2018 MLD 428