Shahzad Rafiq vs The State, etc
This matter arose from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused implicated in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahbhaur, District Okara. The core legal questions pertained to whether an alleged unexplained delay of two days in lodging the FIR and prior criminal enmity between the parties constituted sufficient grounds for the grant of bail, particularly where the accused had been incarcerated for a prolonged period without the framing of charges. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the promptly lodged ocular account with the explicit role of firing at the deceased on a vital part of the body, which caused fatal injuries. The Court observed that ocular testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the effect of previous enmity was left for determination at trial, and the bail petition was dismissed.
- Whether an accused specifically attributed with firing a fatal shot on a vital part of the deceased's body is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can the plea of previous criminal enmity between parties be definitively resolved at the stage of bail before recording evidence at trial?
- Whether medical corroboration of ocular testimony showing firearm injuries on vital organs justifies the dismissal of a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 120, dated 12.06.2012 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, PPC at Police Stattion Shahbhaur District Okara.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused attacked the complainant party and the petitioner made a fire shot which hit on Ameer on his face and eyes, who fell down on the ground. On hue and cry raised by the complainant PWs attracted at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of 2 days in lodging the F.I.R. and the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case; that there is a previous enmity of criminal litigation and four cases stood registered against the complainant; that the petitioner is in the judicial lock=up since 03.10.2012 and is no more required for the purpose of investigation; that charge has not yet been framed, hence prays for grant of post arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries to deceased; that ocular account is duly corroborated by the medical evidence; that the prosecution witness have fully supported the version of the complainant, hence prays for dismissal of this petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. The petitioner is seecifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific allegation of firing upon the deceased on vital part of his body resulting into his death. Ocular account is duly corroborated by the medical evidence as to time of occurance and the receipt of injuries. The prosecution witness have fully supported the version of the complainant in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C.
Any effect of the precious enmity will be determined by the Trial Court after recording of the evidence. At present, prima facie, there are sufficient grounds to belive that the [etitioner is involved in the case in hand. Resultnatly, this petition having no merits is dismissed.