Israr Ahmad vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 147/2014, involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest given the contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that the firearm injury attributed to the petitioner in the FIR was not corroborated by the medical report, which only noted an abrasion. Furthermore, the petitioner had not caused any injury to the deceased, making his vicarious liability a matter for trial. The Court emphasized that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over one year and seven months without the trial concluding, and that mere heinousness of an offense is insufficient grounds to deny bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to the concession. Consequently, the case was deemed one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and bail was granted.
- Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the heinousness of an offense sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to the concession?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of a trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.147/2014 dated 21.07.2014 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 PPC, registered at Police Station Chountra, District Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the arguments advanc ed by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in FIR yet the firearm injury attributed to him therein could not be observed by the doctor during medical examination of Arslan injured and as per his medico legal certificate only an abrasion was observed, hence, prima facie there is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence. Even otherwise the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, therefore, the questions of sharing common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as well as his vicarious liability in the commission of murder of Usman deceased shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed on 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He was arrested in connection with this case on 21.08.2014; now more than one year and seven months have elapsed and he is still behind the bars but his trial has not been concluded as yet. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more requi red for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. I may observe here that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled to this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petitio n is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.