Qaisar Abbas vs The State, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is charged under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with a murderous assault case. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the alleged offence and the status of the investigation, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. The court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in the FIR, the specific injuries attributed to him were on the right ankle of the injured party, suggesting a lack of intention to target vital parts for a murderous assault. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the petitioner had been in judicial custody since January 2013, rendering further incarceration unnecessary for the prosecution's purposes. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that where investigation is complete and the specific nature of the injury does not prima facie establish an intent to commit murder, continued detention is not warranted.
- Does causing injury to a non-vital part of the body, such as the ankle, negate the prima facie intention required for an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the completion of the investigation and submission of the challan a relevant factor in determining whether to grant post-arrest bail?
- Does the continued incarceration of an accused serve a useful purpose for the prosecution once the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,.
894, dated 29.12.2012, under sections 324, 148, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Alipur Chatha District Gujranwala.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused committed murderous assault upon brother of the complainant Nasrullah and one Habib by injuring them. Hence this FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly the occurrence took place at the house of the petitioner's party and the injured received injuries there and presence of the complainant is doubtful; that false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C; that the petitioner has not repeated his act of firing; that offence under section 324, PPC is not made out against the petitioner; that co-accused of the petitioner namely, Bashir, Jafar, Ishaq and Mst. Balqees Bibi have been found innocent; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 16.1.2013 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Places reliance on Muhammad Umar vs. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477) and Umer Hayyat vs. The State and others (2008 SCM R 1621) and prays for grant of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role of rising lalkara and thereafter he injured the complainant and Habib Ullah with hatchet; that hatchet and pistol were recovered from the possession of the petitioner on 23.1.2013 and 27.1.2013 respectively; that offence under section 324, PPC is attracted in the present case; that challan has been submitted in the Trial Court and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 4.8.2013; that the petitioner has been found guilty. Places reliance on Liaquat Ali vs. The State (2004 P.Cr.L.J 962) and prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the paties and perused the record.
6. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR yet he allegedly caused injuries on the right ankle of Habib injured, therefore, prima facie, I am of the view that the petitioner had no intention to fire upon the vital part, of the injured for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Since the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted in the Trial Court, therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose of the prosecution. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since 16.1.2013 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation.
7. For what has been discussed above and by placing reliance upon the Muhammad Umar vs. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Bail after arrest allowed.