MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns a request for confirmation of pre-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Akram, who was accused in an FIR involving allegations of inflicting injuries with a Kassi (hoe) on the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The court observed that the complainant's FIR account conflicted with the medical report, specifically regarding the nature of the weapon and the injury attributed to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Medical Board was unable to provide a definitive opinion on the injury due to the belated stage of examination and the absence of the complainant's clothes. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution's case against the petitioner constituted a matter of further inquiry. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, ruling that the possibility of mala fide involvement could not be excluded and that the recovery of the weapon would serve no useful purpose after a significant lapse of time. The principle established is that where significant discrepancies exist between ocular and medical evidence, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence justify treating a case as one of further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the recovery of the alleged weapon of offense is unlikely to yield useful forensic evidence due to the passage of time?
- Is the possibility of mala fide involvement a sufficient ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through the instant petition, the petitioner Muhammad Akram seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 82, dated 08.07.2015, under Section 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sahja, District Rahimyar Khan.
2. As per brief allegations leveled in the F.I.R. On 7.7.2015 at 4:00 p.m., the petitioner alongwith his co- accused while armed with Kassi, launched an attack on Allah Dewaya and inflicted different injuries on his person.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The petitioner has been assigned the role of inflicting a Kassi (Hoe) blow on the head of the complainant Allah Dewaya. The complainant has specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. That the co- accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Khalid inflicted wrong side of the Kassi (Hoe) blow on his right hand but he has not mentioned in the F.I.R. That the petitioner has given the wrong side of Kassi (Hoe) blow which prima facie means that the petitioner inflicted the right side of the Kassi
(Hoe) blow but according to the MLC, the kind of weapon used in the occurrence was blunt. The petitioner challenged the aforementioned MLC before the Medical Board on the ground that the complainant got the aforementioned MLC being in league with the Medical Officer to strengthen his false and fabricated story. The Medical Board has opined that it was unable to give any opinion regarding the injury (Injury No. 1) attributed to the petitioner at the belated stage. It was further noted that the clothes worn by the complainant at the time of incident were not produced before the Board.
' The conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence of the prosecution has established that the complainant has not given the true account of the incident in the F.I.R., therefore, truthfulness or otherwise of the story narrated in the F.I.R. Shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of the evidence and at present, the case of prosecution against the petitioner is one of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Kassi (Hoe) is still to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner but in my humble view no useful purpose will be served by the said recovery because the blood, if any, present on the Kassi (Hoe) must have disintegrated by now because the occurrence took place on 07.07.2015 and a period of about three months has already elapsed. Reference in this contest may be made to the cases of "Malik Muhammad Aslam vs. The State and others" (2014 SCM R 1349) and "Muhammad Jamil vs. Muhammad Akram and others" (2009 SCM R 120).
6. In the light of above, possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out at this stage therefore, the instant petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is clarified that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of instant petition.