SAIF ULLAH vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 297 of 2010, registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged attempt to commit qatl-i-amd. The petitioner sought bail on grounds that the injury was not on a vital part of the body, the co-accused had been granted bail, and the trial had been delayed beyond the stipulated period. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries, the evidence connecting him to the crime, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused because he was the one who fired the shot. The Court established that even in the absence of specific intent to murder, the act of firing a firearm at an individual constitutes sufficient knowledge that death could result, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the firing of a weapon at an individual constitute sufficient grounds to invoke Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, even if the injury is not on a vital part of the body?
- Does a case fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused is directly linked to the firing that caused the injury?
- Can an accused be denied bail if the delay in trial is attributable to the accused's own conduct?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD YOUNIS, J.-- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 297 of 2010 dated 21-8-2010 under section 324/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Muhammad Pur District Rajanpur.
' Briefly, stated that facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that shaft of the peter engine fan was stolen away by the petitioner and Rehmat Ullah son of Ghulam Yasin brother of the complainant went to them and demanded return of the shaft when hot words were exchanged between them and on the date of occurrence on 1-8-2011 at about 4-00 p.m. The brother of the complainant was going to his lands when near Railway Station Mauza Allah Abad the petitioner Saif Ullah, Rehmat Ullah and Allah Ditta all armed with pistols emerged all of a sudden from the sugar cane crop. Allah Ditta raised "Lalkara" to give taste to the said Yasin for insulting Saif Ullah petitioner. Rehmat Ullah fired twice but luckily the brother of the complainant was not hit then the petitioner Saif Ullah fired at Yasin hitting him on his right thigh.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had no intention to kill the injured. No injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body so the provisions of section 324, P.P.C.
Are not attracted. The petitioner is in the judicial lock up for the last 9 months, The co-accused have already been granted bail. The trial was directed to be concluded by the learned Addi: Sessions Judge within six months but it was not concluded within the stipulated period. The complainant party failed to produce the evidence. In these circumstances, the learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned D.P.G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition and argued that 10 pallets hit the injured. The recovery has already been effected. The petitioner is nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. It is a daylight occurrence. The ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence, so the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Moreover, on 29-7-2011 an adjournment was sought by the petitioner for engaging a new counsel.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides and perused the record.
6. The nature of injuries on the person of the injured indicates that he was fired at by the petitioner.
His case is distinguishable from those of the co-accused. Even if the petitioner had no intention to murder the injured, he had at least the knowledge that his act of firing at him and using of fire-arm may cause the death of the injured. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The witnesses were present on 29-7-2011 but the case was adjourned due to the petitioner. The recovery has also been effected from the petitioner and there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The provisions of section 324, P.P.C.
Are also attracted. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the petition is hereby dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the next date of hearing under intimation to D.R. (Judl.) of this court.