Irshaad alias Shadan vs State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Irshaad alias Shadan, who is accused in FIR No. 20/2021 for offences including attempted murder, kidnapping, and house trespass. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the evidence on record. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR, and the ocular account of the complainant was corroborated by medical evidence confirming a firearm injury declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqqilah. Furthermore, the court noted that the offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the recovery of the weapon of offence from the petitioner and the investigation report finding him guilty provided sufficient prima facie incriminating material. The court established the principle that where there is strong ocular evidence corroborated by medical reports and recovery of the weapon in a non-bailable offence, bail should be refused.
- Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is post-arrest bail appropriate when ocular evidence is corroborated by medical reports and the recovery of the weapon?
- Does the nomination of an accused in the FIR coupled with a medical report confirming injury constitute sufficient prima facie material to deny bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshaad alias Shadan petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No. 20/2021 dated 12.01.2021 offences under Sections 324, 365, 452, 354, 337-H(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(vi), 148, 149, PPC at police station Saddar , Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as narrated by the complainant in the FIR was that on 12.01.2021 at about 11:30 a.m, Irshaad alias Shadan petitioner who was allegedly armed with pistol 30-bore trespassed into the house of the complainant and inflicted injuries on the person of wife of the comp lainant Mst Haseena Bibi which landed on her left foot. The allegations of severe beating and extending life threa ts are in addition to that. Hence instant FIR was registered.
3. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and learned D.D.P .P, it has been noticed that petitioner is nominated in the FIR. There was specific allegation against the petitioner that he alongwith his co- accused persons criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and while armed with pistol 30-bore inflicted injuries on the person of Mst. Haseena Bibi injured P.W which landed on her left foot. Mst. Haseena Bibi was medically examined by the doctor . Injury No. 1 was observed by doctor as firearm injury on her big toe of left foot. Injury No. 1 was declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqqilah by the doctor which comes within the ambit of Section 337-F(vi), PPC. According to the report of X-ray there was comminuted fracture of proximal phalanx let foot big toe.
The ocular account furnished by the prosecution qua the allegation against the petitioner finds corroboration from the medical evidence of Mst. Haseena Bibi. The offence 324 PPC alleged against the petitioner comes within the purview of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. During investigation pistol 30-bore was recovered from the possession C of the petitioner and he was found guilty . Prima facie sufficient incriminating material is available on record connecting the petitioner with the commission of of fences alleged against him.
4. For what has been discussed abbve, instant petition having no force stands dismissed.