DILDAR HUSSAIN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Dildar Hussain, in a criminal case registered under sections 324 and 334/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was charged with causing a firearm injury to the complainant's father, which ultimately resulted in the amputation of the victim's leg. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the severity of the injuries, the specific attribution of the firearm injury, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the injury led to amputation and that the case fell within the prohibitory clause. The Court emphasized that bail proceedings require only a tentative assessment of evidence, not a deep appreciation of facts. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of consistency based on a co-accused's bail, distinguishing the petitioner's role from that of the female co-accused who lacked medical support for the injury attributed to her.
- Does an injury leading to amputation attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible during the consideration of a bail application?
- Can a co-accused claim the benefit of the rule of consistency if the other accused was granted bail on grounds of gender and lack of medical evidence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Dildar Hussain son of Qamar Din, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.199 of 2005 dated 28-4-2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Sammundri, District Faisalabad, for offences under section 324, 334/34, P.P.C.
2. The case of the complainant Amjad Ali son of Muhammad Tufail as narrated in the F.I.R. registered at his instance, was that he was a resident of Chak No.177-GB and was agriculturist by profession; his father had taken on lease agricultural land measuring 8 acres forming part of Square No.59 from Dilawar Hussain petitioner; his father's own land was also situated in the said square; on 26-4-2005 about 6-00 p.m. he, his father Muhammad Tufail and one Ghulam Nabi son of Hassan Din were forming sheaves of wheat when all of a sudden Dildar Hussain (petitioner) armed with .12 bore double barrelled gun, Muhammad Hafeez armed with .12 bore repeater, Mst. Razia Begum armed with .30 bore pistol appeared; Dildar Hussain raised a Lalkara that Muhammad Tufail be not spared alive and simultaneously he fired with his .12 bore gun aimed at his father hitting him on his right leg; Muhammad Hafeez fired with .12 bore repeater again hitting his father on his right leg which got broken from two places causing him to fall down; his brother Muhammad Arshad advanced forward to extricate his father whereupon Mst. Razia Begum hit him with the butt of the pistol causing fracture of his tooth; the hue and cry raised by him and Ghulam Nabi attracted the persons working in the fields; whereafter the accused party left the scene brandishing their weapons; he and his companions took the injured to Civil Hospital Samundri where the latter was medically examined and in view of his serious condition he was referred to Civil Hospital, Faisalabad. The motive according to the complainant was that Dildar Hussain the petitioner who had received the lease money was demanding more money , as a result whereof the instant F.I.R. had been recorded.
3. The petitioner applied for his post-arrest bail which was turned down by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Samundri vide his order dated 4-7-2005. Thereafter he moved the Court of Session for post-arrest bail but the same was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Samundri vide his order dated 18-7-2005. After having unsuccessful in his attempts to get bail, the petitioner moved this Court for the grant of post-arrest bail vide Crl. Misc. No.6256-B/05, which was however withdrawn. He has moved this Court again for the grant of bail.
4. I have heard Syed Nisar Safdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Jameela Barlas, the learned State Counsel and have perused the record brought by Ahmad Yar A.S.-I., Police Station Saddar Samundri, District Faisalabad.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, it has been noticed that the petitioner has been attributed a specific role of causing fire-shot injury to Muhammad Tufail at his right leg. According to the Medico-legal report two injuries had been sustained by the injured causing fracture at two places. The injures so received by Muhammad Tufail finally led to the amputation of his right leg whereafter section 334 P.P.C. had been added. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that both the injuries suffered by Muhammad Tufail had been the result of a single lire-shot and that the same had been caused by Muhammad Hafeez accused who was armed with a .12 bore repeater, would amount to undertaking a deeper appreciation of the material available on the record. It is now well-settled that while seized of a bail application, the Court is to confine itself to tentative assessment of the material available. It has not been denied that Muhammad Tufail injured and the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. including the complainant stand firm on the position taken by them right from day one. The amputation of the leg of the injured has also not been denied. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amputation had to be carried out because of the negligence of the doctor is absolutely misconceived. It is like pleading in a murder case that had the victim been taken to the hospital, he would have survived. The third arguments that from the facts and circumstances of the case intention to kill is not prima facie made out and that the applicability of section 324 P.P.C. calls for further probe, also does not help the petitioner in that, section 334 P.P.C. itself attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. His next argument that since Mst. Razia Begum co-accused wife of the present petitioner has been allowed bail by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the said concession keeping in view the rule of consistency, is also devoid of force inasmuch as she had been granted bail primarily on the ground that she was a female and the injury attributed to her was not supported by the Medico-legal report. Even the learned counsel for the complainant had not opposed the grant of bail to Mst. Razia Begum.
6. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.Q./D-35/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.