ABDUL GHAFFAR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of murder and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and medical evidence, the delay in reporting the FIR, and the nature of the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the four-hour delay in reporting the incident remained unexplained. Furthermore, the Court observed a significant contradiction between the FIR, which alleged two head injuries caused by the petitioner and a co-accused, and the post-mortem report, which identified only one head injury. Additionally, the Investigating Officer opined that the petitioner was only attributed a 'lalkara' (incitement), and no recovery was made from him. Emphasizing that the petitioner's continued incarceration without trial would amount to pre-trial punishment, the Court granted bail, establishing that material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence constitute valid grounds for the grant of bail.
- Does a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the number of injuries constitute a ground for bail?
- Is an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted where the only role attributed to the accused is that of 'lalkara' and no recovery is made?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdul Ghaffar, petitioner seeks his release on post arrest bail in case FIR No, 324 dated 26.07.2015, registered under Sections 302/148/149, PPC with Police Station Kasowal, District Sahiwal.
2. As per FIR, the petitioner in the company of his co-accused, attacked upon the complainant party and committed murder of Khalil Ahmed and caused injuries to injured persons with their respective weapons.
3. Parties heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of the record shows that alleged occurrence reported to the police with the delay of four hours while has not been explained by the complainant in the plausible manner. Bare perusal of FIR reveals that two injuries were caused at the head of deceased by present petitioner and Muhammad Ramzan but according to postmortem report there was only one injury at the head of deceased, which evidently shows that ocular account and medical evidence are not at same page. During the investigation it was opined by Investigating Officer that only lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner and during the physical remand nothing was recovered at the stance of present petitioner. The petitioner is behind the bars since 26.11.2015, whose person is not required for further investigations and his long incarceration in jail would amount as sentence before the judgment. By granting bail to the petitioner; his custody is being handed over to the sureties, who would produce him on each and every date of hearing and that would serve the purpose of law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing 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.