MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE vs The STATE through P.O. Punjab and another
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of post-arrest bail by the High Court in a case arising from FIR No. 240 of 2017 involving an offence under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted a single knife blow to the victim's back following a dispute at a musical event. The primary legal issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the single injury on a vital part versus the circumstances of identification during a night-time incident. The Supreme Court granted leave and allowed bail to the petitioner. The Court held that since the incident occurred at night without any cited source of light and involved a general assault by multiple accused, the possibility of misidentification could not be ruled out. Additionally, the fact that only a single blow was inflicted without repetition was a material factor justifying the grant of bail. The Court affirmed that observations made in bail orders remain strictly tentative and do not prejudice trial proceedings.
- Whether the lack of a specified light source at a night-time crime scene creates sufficient doubt regarding identification to justify granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the infliction of a single blow without repetition constitute a relevant factor when considering an application for bail?
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUNIB AKHTAR, J.---By a short order dated 4.7.2018 we had granted leave in this petition and allowing the same, enlarged the petitioner on ball in terms as therein stated. The following are the reasons for the short order.
2. The case of the complainant (respondent No,2 before us) as narrated in FIR No,240 of 2017 dated 23.8.2017 (registered at Police Station Isakhail, District Mianwall) was that on the fateful day he along with some other persons including his cousin, one Tanveer, went to attend a musical evening in connection with some marriage celebrations. When the program ended late at night the complainant had an altercation with some persons including the present petitioner which was patched up by some other persons present there. Thereafter, when the complainant party was returning home at around 10.30 p.m. they were intercepted and accosted by the accused near a Mosque. The petitioner proclaimed that he would teach the complainant party a lesson and thereafter the accused party attacked the latter. The petitioner allegedly gave a knife blow to Tanveer in his back on the upper right side which resulted in an injury that came within the scope of section 337-D, P.P.C. The other members of the accused party also assaulted the complainant party. Some other injuries (though not with a knife) were also received. The FIR was registered accordingly and the petitioner was arrested in connection therewith. He applied for bail but the same was denied both by the learned trial Court and the learned High Court and as a result the petitioner filed the present leave petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were five accused. The other four got pre-arrest bail which was confirmed. Although specific role has been assigned to the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that it was a night time occurrence, and even as per the case of the accused party only one knife blow was inflicted on Tanveer. There was no repetition in the attack.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the FIR was promptly lodged and a specific role has been assigned to the petitioner. The motive for the attack is clearly spelt out and although only one injury was inflicted as a result of the knife blow, it was on a vital part of the body, and resulted in an injury that was sufficient to bring the matter within the prohibitory clause. The fact that there was no repeated assault was irrelevant. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the leave petition and submitted that the medical report fully supported the case of the complainant.
4. After having heard learned counsel as above, we concluded that a case of bail was made out.
Although a specific role has been assigned to the petitioner, it is not in doubt that it was a night time occurrence and there is nothing to show whether there was any light source at the place of occurrence as would enable the complainant party to determine which of the accused party had attacked the victim in the manner as stated therein. It was also stated in the FIR that the accused party together assaulted the complainant party and the possibility of a mistake being made by the complainant in such a situation cannot be ruled out. The fact that only a single blow was inflicted should also be given due consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. For all of these reasons we were satisfied that the case for bail was made out, and therefore disposed of the petition in the manner as stated in short order.
5. Needless to say, whatsoever has been stated herein is only of a tentative nature and merely for the limited purposes to determine whether or not the petitioner was entitled to bail. Nothing said herein shall prejudice the case of either the prosecution or the defence in any trial arising out of the FIR, which shall proceed to decision entirely and solely on the merits of the case and the evidence before the Court.