MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of firearm injuries caused to the complainant. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of lack of motive, absence of specific overt acts, and the assertion that the injuries were not intended to cause death. The State opposed the bail, citing the prompt registration of the F.I.R., corroborating medical evidence, the recovery of a weapon, and the petitioner's status as a habitual offender with multiple prior criminal cases. The Court observed that the medical report confirmed firearm injuries consistent with the eye-witness accounts, and the police investigation established the petitioner's involvement. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had a history of criminal involvement, indicating he was a habitual offender. Concluding that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail and dismissed the petition.
- Whether a petitioner with a history of multiple criminal cases is entitled to the concession of bail in a case involving serious offences?
- 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 bail appropriate when the medical evidence and eye-witness accounts corroborate the prosecution's case regarding firearm injuries?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J .---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.214 of 2004; dated 26-8-2004, registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kalur Kot, District Bhakkar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his co-accused, both armed with .30 bore pistols caused- injuries on the legs of the complainant. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be an altercation which took place between the complainant and the co-accused Saif Utah few days prior to the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no motive was ascribed to the petitioner, that no specific role had been assigned to him; that the petitioner did not repeat the fire and no independent overt act had been attributed-to him; that the locale of injury showed that the intention of the petitioner and his co-accused was not to murder the complainant; that no recovery had been effected from the petitioner; that the police during the investigation held that the petitioner did not fire from his pistol at the complainant and that the petitioner was behind the bars since 17-5-2005, as such he was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged; that it was a daylight occurrence and the Medico-legal Report of the injured complainant supported the eye-witness account; that .30 bore pistol had been recovered from the petitioner; that he was habitual offender as five cases stood registered against him, two of which were under section 392, P.P.C. that the challan had been submitted and the case was fixed for recording of evidence before the learned trial Court hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The injured complainant was shot by the petitioner and his co-accused on both legs and the injuries ascribed to the petitioner and his co-accused were declared to be fire-arm injuries by the Medical Officer, thus the Medico-legal Report is in conformity with the eye-witness account. The final result of the injury on the basis of X-Ray revealed shattering of tibia. The two eye-witnesses, namely, Ghani and Aftab in their statements before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. fully supported the case of the prosecution. After a thorough investigation the police found the petitioner to be fully involved in the prosecution case. Further, recovery of .30 bore pistol has also been effected from the petitioner which further connects him with the case of the prosecution. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged and it was a daylight occurrence hence there is no question of mistaken identity. The record reveals that the petitioner is a record holder inasmuch as five F.I.Rs. under various sections of P.P.C. stand registered against him. This fact is sufficient to show that the petitioner is habitual offender and is involved in cases of serious nature. Prima facie, the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. are attracted to the case of the petitioner which offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition being without force is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-568/L Bail refused.