Pakistan Case Law
2020 SCMR 1486

Sheqab Muhammad vs The State and another

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2020 SCMR 1486
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No. 591 of 2020
Date2020-08-07
Judge(s)Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel and Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
Authored byQazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
ResultBail refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of a murderous assault involving firearm injuries during a dispute over immovable property. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, given the arguments regarding contradictions between ocular and medical accounts, the absence of independent public witnesses, and the injury being on a non-vital part of the body. The Supreme Court held that in a daylight incident supported by injured witnesses and timely medical examinations, a prima facie case under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, was established, attracting the statutory prohibition against bail. The Court laid down the principle that a murderous assault draws no anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of the body once the trigger is pressed, and an assailant cannot claim a concession or premium for poor marksmanship. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with a murderous assault supported by injured eyewitnesses and medical evidence?
  • Does a murderous assault under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, draw any anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of the human body?
  • Can an assailant claim the benefit of bail on the ground of poor marksmanship when a firearm is discharged at a victim?
  • At what stage is an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case forbidden by law in bail matters?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailmurderous assaultfirearm injurystatutory prohibitionfurther probevital and non-vital partscriminal petition

ORDER

QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Petitioner is amongst the array of accused, blamed to have murderously assaulted the PWs at 9:10 a.m. on 10.4.2020 within the precincts of Police Station Himmat Khan Shaheen Kalangi, District Malakand, in the backdrop of a dispute over immovable property; fire shot attributed to the petitioner is confirmed by a medico legal certificate.

2. Heard.

3. Arguments that ocular account stands contradicted by medical evidence and in the absence of an independent witness from the public, petitioner's general participation, resulting into an injury on a non-vital part of the body, particularly in the absence of repeated fire shot, squarely brings his case within the remit of further probe, are not only beside the mark but also cannot be attended without undertaking an in-depth analysis of the prosecution case, an exercise forbidden by law at bail stage. In a daylight affair, two persons sustained firearm injuries besides the one having endured violence through blunt means and as such requires no public support to drive home the charge; their statements supported by medical examinations of even date, cumulatively bring petitioner's case prima facie within the mischief of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, he cannot be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code Ibid. Similarly, murderous assault as defined in the section ibid draws no anatomical distinction between vital or non-vital parts of human body. Once the triggered is pressed and the victim is effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by the section ibid is manifested; the course of a bullet is not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor can he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship. Exercise of discretion by the High Court being well within the bounds of law calls for no interference. Petition fails. Leave declined.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.