SHOAIB alias SABA vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging he fired at the deceased hitting the left eye. The Court examined the medical evidence, noting a significant discrepancy between the FIR's initial allegation and the post-mortem report, which indicated the injury was at the back of the head exiting through the right eyebrow. Although the complainant attempted to rectify this discrepancy via a supplementary statement and a private criminal complaint, the Court observed that these actions appeared to be a result of deliberation to align with medical findings. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since March 2013 without trial in the State case, while simultaneously facing trial in a private complaint regarding the same occurrence. Holding that the attribution was inconsistent and the prolonged detention without trial was unjustified, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the discrepancy in the medical evidence and the delay in trial proceedings entitled the accused to the relief sought.
- Does a significant discrepancy between the FIR's initial allegation and the post-mortem report regarding the seat of injury constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Can a supplementary statement made shortly after an FIR be viewed as a deliberate attempt to align the prosecution's case with medical evidence?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they have been detained for a prolonged period without the conclusion of the trial in the State case, while simultaneously facing trial in a private complaint?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Shoaib alias Saba petitioner seeks his release on post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1309, dated 5-11-2012 registered under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. With Police Station Sargodha Road, Faisalabad.
2. As per F.I.R. The petitioner while armed with pistol fired at the brother of the complainant hitting over the left eye due to which he fell on the ground and subsequently died. The complainant had witnessed the infliction of the injury at the person of his brother in the light available at the Kariana Store' situated nearby the place of occurrence.
3. Parties heard and record perused.
4. As per attribution made by the complainant in the F.I.R. The petitioner had fired hitting over the left eye of the deceased, which injury is not available in the pictorial attached with the postmortem report, which pictorial shows that the injury was received by the deceased at the back of his head and had exited from right eyebrow of the deceased. Obviously the attribution made to the petitioner is not supported by post A mortem examination report.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. Within an hour the complainant had made a supplementary statement wherein he had mentioned that the petitioner had caused injury at the back side of the head, which exited from the front side of the head of the deceased, therefore, the petitioner is the principal accused and is not entitled for the relief of bail. The complainant of the case although within an hour made a supplementary statement changing attribution to the petitioner but there is a possibility that within that time the complainant after consultation and deliberation had changed the attribution just to bring it in the line of the postmortem report. Similarly the complainant has also filed private criminal complaint regarding the same occurrence, in which the seat of injury was at the back of the head of the deceased. In that complaint the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial and as per view taken by this Court the petitioner is lying behind the bars in the State case without any trial, which detention can be termed as illegal and unjustified. The petitioner is facing trial in the private complaint and in detention since 12-3-2013 and there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for his release on post arrest bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner Shoaib alias Saba is admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.