NAIK AMAL vs The STATE and another
The petitioner, Naik Amal, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused, armed with firearms, opened fire on the complainant and his brother, resulting in injuries to the complainant. The court observed that despite the allegation of indiscriminate firing by five individuals, no crime empties were recovered from the scene. Furthermore, the court noted that the complainant sustained injuries only on non-vital parts of his body, despite the assailants allegedly having the opportunity to cause greater harm. Given the charge against five brothers and the lack of physical evidence, the court found a high probability of false implication and a tendency to rope in family members. Consequently, the court held that the case required further inquiry and granted the petitioner bail, emphasizing that the circumstances raised reasonable doubt regarding the intent to commit murder.
- Does the absence of recovered crime empties from the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can the fact that injuries were sustained only on non-vital parts of the body raise doubt regarding the intent to commit murder?
- Is the probability of false implication of multiple family members a valid consideration for granting bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The petitioner, Naik Mal, seeks bail in case FIR No. 925 dated 13.6.2015 registered under sections 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Bhana Mari, Peshawar after the said relief was declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Peshawar on 25.6.2015.
2. Allegations against the accused-petitioner are that on the fateful date and time, the complainant and his brother Zahirullah were present on the spot when in the meanwhile, owing to a previous quarrel, the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused namely, Ajmal, Sangar, Bashar, Romal, and Sabaun sons of Rahmatullah duly armed with fire arms came there and started firing at them which resulted into causing fire arm injuries on his person while his brother escaped unhurt, hence the FIR ibid. ' Arguments heard and record perused.
3. In the present case, the complainant alleges to have been present on the spot along with his brother Zahirullah when the accused-petitioner along with his four brothers arrived there and started firing at them with their respective weapons with which he was injured. Despite indiscriminate firing by five persons not a single crime empty has been retrieved from the spot.
Secondly, the complainant having been hit on the non- vital parts of the body despite being at the mercy of five armed persons certainly raises the question as to whether there was any intention on the part of the assailants to make an attempt at the lives of the complainant and his brother.
Moreover, for two injuries on the non-vital parts of the body of the complainant, five brothers have been charged and the probability of false implication in view of the prevalent tendency in the society to throw a wide net to rope in many persons of a family cannot be ruled out. All such circumstances certainly take the case of the accused-petitioner to one of further inquiry and thus entitling him to the concession of bail.
' Resultantly, this bail petition is allowed and the accused-petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200000/- (Two lac) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court which shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 2 cases
- Tariq vs State & 1 another 2017 PHC 582
- TARIQ vs The STATE and another 2018 YLR 578