ABDUL QADEER vs The STATE and another
This is a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the apparent contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the fatal injury. The High Court granted bail, holding that the case against the petitioner constituted a matter of further inquiry. The court determined that where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's ocular account—specifically where an injury attributed to the accused is medically identified as an exit wound of another injury—the accused is entitled to bail. Furthermore, the lack of incriminating forensic evidence on the recovered weapon and the principle of consistency, given that co-accused had already been granted bail, supported the decision to release the petitioner. The court emphasized that such discrepancies in the prosecution's narrative create sufficient doubt to warrant bail pending trial.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence regarding the nature of an injury render a case one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under the rule of consistency if co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted relief?
- Does the absence of human blood on a recovered weapon during forensic analysis constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,365 of 2012 dated 26-10-2012, registered under sections 302/109/337-A(0, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148/149 P.P.C. At Police Station, Mehmood Kot, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The prosecution version embodied in the F.I.R. Is that Khadim Hussain complainant had reported the matter to the police while deposing that on 26-10-2012 at about 9.30 a.m., his son namely Muhammad Azam along with his friends namely Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Arif and Tariq Mahmood had gone to play cricket and when after about 10 minutes, on hearing hue and cry, he along with Haji Ghulam Qasim, Haji Manzoor Hussain, rushed to the spot, saw that Muhammad Hussain, Munir Ahmad (co-accused) Qadeer Ahmad (petitioner), Mahboob Ahmad, Muhammad Tanvir, Waseem Raja, all armed with Chhuii and Muhammad Sharif armed with a gun were quarreling with Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Tariq; that Muhammad Sharif co-accused, who was standing at a side of the ground was telling the above named boys that Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Tariq be killed so that they may not dare to quarrel with them; that within the view of the above named complainant and P.Ws., Munir Ahmad (co-accused), while armed with Chhuri, attacked at Muhammad Azam and caused injury at right side of his neck; that Qadeer Ahmad (petitioner) inflicted a Chhuri blow on left side of the neck of Muhammad Azam, whereas, Mahboob (co- accused), made such blow at the chest of Muhammad Azam; that Munir Ahmad co-accused again made a Chhuri blow which landed at the back of Muhammad Azam, whereupon he fell down; that when P.W. Muhammad Tahir stepped forward to rescue Muhammad Azam, Waseem Raja (cc, accused) inflicted a Chhuri blow, which landed on his right side of shoulder and when Muhammad Tariq P.W. Step forward, Muhammad Tanveer (co-accused) caused injury to him at right side of his neck, below right ear and back of the head; that when Muhammad Arif P.W., stepped forward, Mahboob, Muhammad Hanif, Qadeer Ahmad and Waseem Raja, co-accused attacked at him and caused injuries to him; that on hue and cry the inhabitants of the locality attracted whereupon the accused fled away and that motive behind the occurrence was a quarrel which occurred a day earlier during playing of volley ball and that Muhammad Azam when was being shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.
3. It has been argued that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in this case with mala fide; that as per prosecution version, the petitioner has inflicted a Chhuri blow at left side of the neck of Muhammad Azam, but according to the medical report the said injury (injury No,2) was the exit wound of the injury No,1; that in this way no injury to the deceased could be attributed to the petitioner; that co-accused of the petitioner who allegedly had caused injuries to Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Tariq (P.Ws.) had been granted bail and as such the present petitioner is also entitled for the said relief under the rule of consistency; that the case against the petitioner is of further inquiry; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and as such is no more required for further investigation.
4. The learned D.P.-G. As well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition and the grounds taken therein with the contentions that the present petitioner is main accused, who had caused injury on the vital part of the body of the deceased, which resulted into his death; that the alleged contradiction between ocular account and the medical evidence will be seen during the trial and at present it could not be given any importance and that as present petitioner is responsible for committing the murder of an innocent person, hence is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. It has been observed that when previously during the arguments on 22-10-2013, my learned brother Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan, J, had come to know that Injury No, 2 (on left side of the neck of the deceased) which was attributed to the present petitioner, as per post-mortem report was declared as an exit wound, it was directed that for clarification the doctor who had conducted the above said examination, be directed to appear in person before this Court today.
7. Today, the above named doctor has appeared in the court and stated that during the post- mortem examination, the injury No,1 found at the right side of the neck of the deceased was through and through and as such exit of the said injury was the injury No,2 observed on the left side of the neck.
8. Under the above-mentioned situation, when as per alleged prosecution story, the present petitioner had caused injury at the left side of the neck of the deceased, but as per doctor, the said injury was exit of the injury No,1 as it was through and through, the case of the petitioner has become of further inquiry. Further it has been found that except the abovementioned injury, the status of which has been found as mentioned above, no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the present petitioner.
9. It has further been observed that co-accused of the present petitioner to whom injuries of Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Tariq and Muhammad Arif have been attributed, have been admitted to bail by this B Court. It has further been noticed that use of Chhuri has been alleged to the petitioner, but during the investigation a Chopper was been recovered from him which during the forensic analysis could not be found to be stained with blood of human origin.
10. As a result of above discussion, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail-bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.