UMAR UD DIN vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Umar ud Din, who was charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to an FIR registered at Police Station City Gilgit. The petitioner sought bail after his initial application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the petitioner was directly charged and a weapon was recovered, the injuries were inflicted on non-vital parts of the body (thighs), suggesting a lack of clear intent to kill at this stage. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, determining that the question of intent under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is a matter to be resolved during trial upon the recording of evidence. The key principle established is that where injuries are inflicted on non-vital body parts, the intent to kill required for Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, remains a triable issue, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the infliction of injuries on non-vital parts of the body negate the immediate presumption of intent to kill under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the determination of intent to kill requires the recording of evidence at trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---Umar ud Din son of Nabeer , resident of Kargah sought post arrest bail in the offence under section 324, P.P.C. vide FIR No.132/2018 dated 09.11.2018 registered at Police Station City Gilgit. On 09.11.2018 on the written application of complainant (injured) Rahim Jan.
2. The petitioner after completion of investigation was sent to judicial lockup, who applied for post arrest bail, which was refused to him vide judgment/order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 30-11-2018. Being aggrieved from the above judgment/order the petitioner filed instant Cr. Misc. No.235/2018 before this Court for concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case. The provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted as no medical certificate has been issued in favour of complainant. There was no intention to kill, as the petitioner caused injuries on left/right thighs of the complainant, which are not vital part of the body . The recovery is also planted and cannot be used in aid of prosecution.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that it was a day light occurrence in which the petitioner/accused was directly nominated for commission of the alleged offence. The recovery of a knife has also been effected from the petitioner . The injury sheet prepared by the I.O. is in line with the prosecution case and the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail as the offence under section 324, P.P.C. falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr .P.C.
5. No doubt that the petitioner is direct ly charged in the FIR and a knife has also been recovered from his possession on his pointation. The FIR and the record reveals that the petitioner inflicted knife injuries on the right/left thighs of the complainant, which are not vital part of the body . The petitioner did A not choose any vital part of body , which he was able to choose. The intention to kill an attraction of section 324, P.P.C., will be determined at the time of trial after recording of some evidence. The petitioner has been able to make out a case for bail. The petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200000/- (two lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. The instant Cr . Misc. bearing No. 235/2018 is disposed of accordingly .
Cited by 1 case
- ADIL Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 61