Muhammad Akram vs The State, etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337F(iii), 337F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from F.I.R. No. 388/2013 at Police Station Ellahabad, District Qasur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the injury attributed to him, the lack of recovery, the period already spent behind bars, and the delay in the trial. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that where multiple accused were armed with different weapons, the exact nature of the injury and the weapon used required deeper appreciation of evidence, making it a case of further inquiry. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where the attribution of a specific fire-arm injury is doubtful and debatable at the bail stage, coupled with statutory delay in trial and no recovery remaining, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under the criminal procedure, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the nature of the injury and the weapon used by the accused require a deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Does the statutory delay in the conclusion of a trial constitute a ground for further inquiry and grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no recovery remains to be made from him and he has been incarcerated for a significant period?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337L(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J. --- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 388/2013 under Sections 324, 337F(iii), 337F(vi), 148, 149, PPC at Police Station Ellahabad, District Qasur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner's case falls within the purview of Section 337L(i) which is punishable with seven years imprisonment; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. He added that the petitioner, according to the prosecution, was armed with rifle but it is doubtful whether the injury attributed to the petitioner was caused by fire-arm or not; that the learned High Court has wrongly held that the right arm of the injured has become incapacitated; that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner and he may be allowed bail.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Prosecutor General have opposed the petition on the ground that petitioner has been attributed a specific role of firing at the victim; that he remained fugitive o law for about 5/6 months and does not deserve any leniency.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the complainant and learned Law Officer at some length.
5. According to the prosecution a number of accused have participated in the occurrence. Other co-accused were armed with several other weapons while the petitioner was armed with a rifle. - According to the doctor who medically examined injured Nadeem on the same day i.e. 21.6.2013 there was a punctured wound 0.5 x 0.5 cm margin inverted deep going on posterior lateral aspect of the right shoulder and tender swelling outer upper part of the right side chest. However, he has not mentioned any exit wound, if any. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the petitioner has disputed the finding of the doctor that the injury has been caused by a fire-arm/rifle. However, at this stage we will not comment on the merits of this contention as it requires a deeper appreciation of evidence. In the circumstances, when a number of accused persons were armed with different weapons; the nature of the injury has yet to be ascertained; nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner; the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and no considerable progress has so far been made for the conclusion of trial, it is a case of further inquiry qua the liability of the petitioner and the use of weapon of offence by the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R.
6. For what has been discussed above, it is a fit case for grant of bail. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail.