ABDUL SATTAR vs The STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Sattar, who was charged under sections 324, 336, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing hatchet injuries to the complainant, PW Kelash. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry, considering the delay in the FIR, the alleged false implication, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's case was distinguishable from the co-accused, who had only been attributed an ineffective firing role. The Court emphasized that the applicant was specifically named in the FIR with a direct role in causing a serious injury, classified as 'Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw' (impairment of organs), which constitutes an offense under section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court established that delay in lodging an FIR is not, per se, a sufficient ground for bail if the accused is otherwise linked to the offense, and that bail proceedings do not permit a definitive determination of guilt or innocence.
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Is the grant of bail to a co-accused with a different role sufficient grounds for the grant of bail to the principal accused?
- Can the court determine the innocence or guilt of an accused during the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through instant bail application, applicant is seeking post arrest bail in Crime No,57 of 2016 registered at Police Station Mehmood Abad under sections 324, 336, 504, 34, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, the relevant facts of the case are that the present applicant caused hatchet injury on the back and neck of PW Kelash with intention to commit murder, hence booked in present FIR.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant, being innocent, has been involved in this case falsely; there is delay of two days in lodging the FIR; co-accused Ghulam Mustafa has already been granted bail; injured has not sustained the injury on the vital part of the body; complainant and witnesses are related inter-se; as such according to him the present applicant is entitled for concession of bail on the point of further inquiry.
4. Learned A.P.G. has opposed the bail on the ground that present applicant has caused hatchet blow to PW Kelash with intention to commit his murder and his case is distinguishable to that of co-accused Ghulam Mustafa.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly, the name of the present applicant appears in the FIR with specific role that he being armed with hatchet caused hatchet blow to PW Kelash with intention to commit his murder and that injury has been declared by the Medical Board as "Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw" which is constituting an offence punishable under section 336, P.P.C. No doubt said injury to PW Kelash is caused on back of his chest below the neck and it may not be said to be vital part of his body but there could be made no denial to the fact that it has entailed impairment of the organs, which according to the opinion of the Medical Board may take years to improve, such fact could not be lost of sight. Here, it may be added that in bail matters innocence or guilt is not decided nor legally it is permissible to step forward to go into such details. In bail matters, normally the accused has to make out a case of further inquiry which too with reference to collected material and not necessarily on basis of defence plea. In that situation, it would be pre-mature to say that present applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely. It is true that co-accused Ghulam Mustafa has already been admitted to bail but his case is quite distinguishable to the present accused as he was attributed the role of causing ineffective firing at PW Kelash. No doubt there is delay of about two days in lodging the FIR but delay in FIR per se is no ground for grant of bail if otherwise accused appears to be linked with offence with which he is charged. There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the present applicant is guilty of the offence for which he is charged.
In view of the above discussion, prima facie no case of further inquiry is made out. Accordingly, the instant bail application being without merits is hereby dismissed.