P.C. NOOR ALAM vs The STATE
The applicant, a police constable, sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where his colleague sustained a fatal head injury during a quarrel. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to departmental rivalry, that the deceased died from a fall rather than an assault, and that the charge should be reduced to Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing eyewitness accounts and the applicant's nomination in the F.I.R. The Court held that the mere framing of a charge under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (Qatl-e-Shubah-e-Amd) did not automatically entitle the accused to bail. Finding that the case involved ocular evidence yet to be tested at trial, the Court determined that the applicant was not entitled to bail at this stage. The application was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to record material evidence within three months, granting the applicant liberty to file a fresh bail application thereafter.
- Does the framing of a charge under Section 316 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when there is conflicting evidence regarding the cause of death and the presence of eyewitnesses?
- Can a trial court be directed to expedite the recording of evidence in a criminal case while simultaneously dismissing a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 316, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' AFTAB AHMAD GORAR, The applicant seeks post-arrest bail in case Crime No,107 of 2012 registered at Police Station Nabi Bux, Karachi under section 302, P.P.C.
2. 'According to the prosecution case, the complainant received telephonic call that his brother Muhammad Shafiq who was serving in police department has received head injury and he is under treatment in the hospital. On such information the complainant along with some relatives reached the hospital where he was told that during the course of a quarrel having taken place between his brother and P.C. Noor Alam, the latter hit some sharp edged object at the head of Muhammad Shafiq, with the result he received head injury and brought to hospital. Ultimately during treatment Muhammad Shafiq died at Ziauddin Hospital, thereafter complainant lodged the F.I.R.
3. ' Bail application moved before the trial court was dismissed vide order dated 4-10-2012, hence this bail application.
4. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he possesses good reputation in the department and due to personal grudge/departmental rivalry he has been involved in this false case; that, in fact, during the quarrel the deceased while kicking the applicant slipped and received head injury by falling on the ground; that the trial Court has framed the charge under section 316, P.P.C. However in absence of any weapon the case does not come even within the ambit of section 316 and at the most it falls within the definition of section 319, P.P.C.; that there is no dying declaration of the deceased and, in fact, after receiving the injury the deceased never regained his senses, as such it has falsely been alleged that deceased said that the applicant/accused caused him injury; that no post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased as such cause of death cannot be ascertained, that even otherwise no intention to commit murder has been found and it is clear case of hardship, as such case calls further enquiry and the applicant is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. ' Learned A.P.-G. Opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that there are eye- witnesses of the incident; the applicant has been nominated in the F.I.R. She further contended that at this stage the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail as prima facie is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. She prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
6. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. From the perusal of the record it appears that a quarrel took place between the deceased and the applicant wherein the applicant hit some 'sharp-edged object on the head of the deceased who received head injury and ultimately succumbed to the injury. There is ocular evidence which is yet to come on record. Merely framing of charge under section 316, P.P.C. (Qatl-e-Shubah-e-Amd) is no ground for grant of bail. In my opinion, unless some material evidence is recorded, at this stage the applicant does not seem to be entitled to the concession of bail.
8. ' In the circumstances, bail application is dismissed. However, trial court is directed to record the evidence of material witnesses within a period of three months. Applicant will be at liberty to move fresh bail application after recording of evidence of material witnesses.
9. ' Above are the reasons for short order dated 5-12-2012.