GHULAM YASIN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 133 dated 22.06.2015 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 336, 460 and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence, and the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the inconsistency between the FIR allegations regarding firearm injuries and the medical certificate warranted further inquiry into the petitioner's involvement under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with the principle that an accused cannot be incarcerated indefinitely pending trial. The key principle laid down is that divergence between ocular and medical evidence creates a case for further inquiry making the accused eligible for bail, and prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion justifies the grant of bail.
- Whether discrepancy between ocular account and medical evidence creates a case for further inquiry entitling an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial justify granting post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Is an accused not specifically charged with firing at the deceased entitled to bail when involvement needs further consideration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Ghulam Yasin, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in, case FIR. No, 133 dated 22.06.2015, under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 336, 460 & 337-L(ii), PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Shujabad, District Multan.
2. As per crime report, allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused launched murderous assault upon the complainant party. Petitioner made a fire shot with his repeater which hit at abdomen and arms or complainant. Co-accused of petitioner also gave injuries with their respective weapons to complainant party. Riaz Hussain one of the injured later on succumbed to the injuries.
3. Parties heard. Record perused.
4. As per crime report, petitioner made a fire shot with his operator, pallets of which hit at abdomen and arms of complainant/injured but perusal of MLC of injured reveals that fire shot at abdomen does not exist rather two injuries are on the chest near to nipple while third shot is near temporal region; similarly one injury at arms exist on the person of the witness. This state of affair evinces that ocular account is not in line with the medical evidence; as such, involvement of petitioner in the commission of 'reported crime needs further evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is not accused of firing at the person of deceased. The petitioner is facing incarceration since 19.12.2016, whose trial has yet not been concluded, so till the establishment of the charges levelled against him, he cannot be detained in the jail for an indefinite period of time, thus he is entitled for the relief of bail.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.