ABDUL SATTAR AND Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by several accused persons charged under sections 307, 325, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged attack involving firearms and blunt weapons. The petitioners challenged the rejection of their bail applications by the Court of Sessions and subsequently by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the discrepancies between the First Information Report (FIR) allegations and the medical evidence. The Supreme Court observed that while the FIR alleged the use of firearms and sharp-edged weapons, the medical reports did not substantiate the presence of gunshot or sharp-edged weapon injuries on the victims. Consequently, the Court held that the case of two specific petitioners, Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Ajmal, warranted the grant of bail due to the lack of medical corroboration for the specific allegations against them. Conversely, the Court found no sufficient grounds to grant bail to the remaining petitioners, whose applications were rejected. The principle established is that medical evidence is a critical factor in assessing the veracity of allegations in bail matters.
- Does the absence of medical corroboration for alleged injuries entitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted to some co-accused while being denied to others based on the specific evidence against them?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-Petitioners were charged by the complainant Muhammad Mushtaq under section 307/325 read with sec--petition i48/149, P. P. C. On the allegation that they, while armed with guns, kulharis, hatchets and dangs attacked and caused injuries to the complainant side. Petitioners applied for bail before arrest in the Court of Sessions which was rejected vide order, dated 29-3-1983. They then moved Criminal Miscellaneous 1-B-1983 for bail which was also rejected by a learned Single Judge of. The Lahore High Court vide the impugned order dated 3-4- 1983.
2. Learned counsel for. The petitioners contended that in the F. I. R. Lodged by the complainant Muhammad Mushtaq 12 persons were charged out of whom Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Ajmal were allegedly armed with single barrel and double barrel guns respectively while the rest of the accused/petitioners having armed themselves with hatchets and sticks, an caused injuries to Muhammad Hanif uncle of the complainant and Abdul Sattar fired at Ejaz, brother of the complainant but the medical evidence placed on the record shows that no gun shot injury was sustained by Hanif and Ejaz; P. Ws. Similarly, the other petitioners have been charged for giving hatchet blows to some of the witnesses but this fact is also not supported by the medical evidence as no sharp-edged weapon injury is found on the witnesses. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and would admit only Abdul Sattar and Muhammad Ajmal to bail in the sung of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand only) and with two sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate, Khanqa Dogran, District Sheikhupura. The case of the rest of the accused/petitioners is not fit for the grant of bail and is accordingly rejected.