Jalaluddin Bangulani vs The State
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Jalaluddin Bangulani seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered regarding an unlawful assembly, attempt to commit murder, and causing injuries with a hatchet, after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delayed FIR, medical discrepancy regarding the weapon used, lack of injury repetition, absence of recovery, and previous bail granted to co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the guilt of the applicant called for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon, absence of injury repetition, and consistency of treatment with co-accused already on bail constitute grounds for making a case one of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR makes a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the weapon used justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have already been admitted to bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused hatchet blow to PW Tariq Ali on his head, with intention to commit his murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused post-arrest bail by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s.497 Cr .PC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with him over the landed property; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and the injury sustained by the injured is punishable under section 337-A(ii) PPC, which is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail as his case is calling for further inquiry . In support of his contention, he relied upon case of Muhammad Qasim & another Vs.The State & others ( PLD 2014 Lahore 555 ).
4. Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing hatchet blow to PW Tariq Ali on his head.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The injury sustained by PW Tariq Ali on his head is opined by the medical officer to have been caused to him with some hard blunt substance, which belies the complainant that it was caused to the injured with some sharp cutting weapon. There is no repetition of the injury . There is no recovery of the hatchet.
Co-accused Abdul Jabbar and two others have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court. The parties are already disputed over the landed property . In these circumstances, the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further inquiry .
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P .R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .