MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Ashraf, in connection with F.I.R. No. 107 of 2000, registered under sections 324, 337-A(vi), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Ghumandpur. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner participated in an assault by holding the victim, Mazhar Hussain, while others inflicted firearm and sharp-edged weapon injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have only held the victim and was found empty-handed, was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative regarding the petitioner's role, particularly noting that the firearm injury attributed to a co-accused contradicted the petitioner's alleged act of holding the victim. Finding no recovery from the petitioner and doubting his presence at the scene, the Court held that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing that where the role attributed to an accused is doubtful or inconsistent with the medical evidence, a case for further inquiry is made out.
- Does an inconsistent prosecution narrative regarding an accused's role in an assault constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific role attributed to them is contradicted by the physical circumstances of the crime?
- Can bail be granted when no recovery is effected from the accused and their presence at the scene is rendered doubtful?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(vi), 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(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the F.I.R. No.107 of 2000, dated 16‑6‑2000 under sections 324/337‑A(vi)/337‑F(vi)/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Ghumandpur the complainant and his brother Mazhar Hussain alongwith son of complainant Mushtaq Ahmad went to have a round of their crops as oftenly their crops were damaged by the cattle at night. After a short while, son of complainant, Mushtaq, came back running and told that Mazhar Hussain has been overpowered by Muhammad Ashraf and others five in number and they were beating him. The complainant alongwith Bashir Ahmad son of Noor Muhammad, Manzoor Ahmad son of Ashiq Ali reached at the place of occurrence and saw in the moonlight that Muhammad Ashraf armed with Sota, Khalid alias Shamoon armed with hatchet, Abid Hussain son of Abdul Waheed armed with .30 bore pistol and Khaliq son of Noor Ahmad armed with Sota and that Muhammad Ashraf son of Khushi Muhammad had caught hold brother of complainant and all other accused were beating him. Abid Hussain made a straight shot towards Mazhar Hussain, which hit him on left side of his face. Khalid dealt a hatchet blow on his head and due to these injuries Mazhar Hussain fell on the ground. Thereafter, Muhammad Ashraf son of Niaz Ahmad, Khaliq and Muhammad Ashraf son of Khushi Muhammad injured Mazhar Hussain with their blows. The injured P.W. was medically examined and according to medico‑legal report he sustained nine injuries on different part of his body. 'Injuries Nos. 1, 4 and 5 has been caused by fire‑arm, while injuries Nos. 1, 6, 7 to 9 have been caused by blunt weapon and injury No.3 has been caused by sharp‑edged weapon.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as for the State and have perused the record. Perusal of medico‑legal report shows that injuries Nos. 1 to 5 are displaced fracture of Tribia and Fibula of left leg; displaced fracture of skull; displaced fracture of mandible respectively. Part attributed to the petitioner is that he caught hold of Mazhar Hussain, but it is not understandable that if it was the position, how Abid Hussain made a straight fire toward Mazhar Hussain, which hit him. The petitioner has been shown empty‑handed and no fire‑arm or sharp‑edged weapon injury has been attributed to him. The petitioner was arrested on 29‑6‑2000 and no recovery has been effected from him. In this view of the matter his presence at the spot has become doubtful and his case is covered under section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. Bail allowed.
H.B.T./M‑624/L Bail granted.