Ayub vs The State, etc.
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in a case registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of firing and causing injuries with a deadly weapon. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the FIR allegations and the medical evidence, alongside the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with a specific allegation of causing injury with a pistol, the medico-legal report prima facie failed to establish that the injury was indeed caused by a pistol. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had been in judicial custody since December 2012 and was no longer required for investigation, the Court held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the lack of incriminating material connecting the petitioner to the specific offence justified the grant of relief.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the medical evidence contradicts the specific allegations made in the FIR?
- Does the absence of incriminating material connecting an accused to an offence justify the grant of bail?
- Should an accused be granted bail if they are no longer required for the purpose of investigation and have been in judicial lock-up for a significant period?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. ---The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,.
401, dated 17.08.2012, registered under section 324, PPC at Police Station Rajana District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his accused while armed with deadly weapons made a fire and caused injuries on the person of injured PW, hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case; that there is an inordinate delay of 20 days in lodging the FIR; that no crime empty was recovered from the spot which does not justify the occurrence; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner's possession; that according to FIR the petitioner was armed with pistol whereas the pistol was not used as per medico-legal report; that the alleged injury attributed to the petitioner is on the person of Waris who is proclaimed offender and is fugitive from law; that the petitioner is previous non-convict; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 14.12.2012 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation, hence prays for grant of post arrest bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition but conceded that prima facie the injury was not caused with pistol.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of causing injury to the injured PW with pistol yet prima facie, it is not established from the medico-legal report that the injury was caused with pistol. At present, there is no incriminating material against the petitioner connecting him with the alleged offence. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 14.12.2012 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Further incarceration of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose of the prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Bail after arrest granted.