MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No.2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, in a case arising from F.I.R. No.8 dated 6-1-2003 registered under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Khan Garb, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the bail was granted erroneously despite allegations that the accused fired at the injured, causing leg injuries and disability. The Lahore High Court held that the trial court rightly considered that the accused did not repeat fire and that injuries were on non-vital parts, rendering the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code open to further inquiry. The court affirmed that a single valid reason is sufficient in law to grant bail and dismissed the petition for bail cancellation in limine, establishing that tentative assessment regarding non-fatal injuries on non-vital parts justifies post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when injuries are sustained on non-vital parts of the body?
- Is a single valid reason sufficient in law for the grant of bail to an accused?
- Whether bail once granted by a lower court warrants cancellation when the tentative assessment supports further inquiry into the penal section applied?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Akram, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent No.2 Karam Hussain alias Kama by Ch. Shabbir Hussain the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh vide his order dated 14-6-2003 in case F.I.R. No.8 dated 6-1-2003, under section 324 read with section 34, P.R.C., registered with Police Station Khan Garb District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the said case has been registered on the statement of one Muhammad Atta -ur-Rehman. He has alleged therein that on 6-1-2003 at about 3/4 p.m. respondent No.2 while armed with carbine had fired at Muhammad Akram injured resulting into the injuries to his both the legs.
3. He applied for his post-arrest bail. The same was extended to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh vide his afore referred order.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he by his act has made the injured Muhammad Akram disabled and he remained in the Hospital for about 23 days and so, he did not deserve the grant of bail at an early stage of the case; and that he is labourer by profession and his family has suffered a lot due to his remaining in Hospital and this too was the circumstance to be taken into consideration against respondent No.2 at the time of grant of bail to him.
5. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copies of the record annexed to the petition.
6. I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh while extending him (respondent No.2) the relief of post-arrest bail was influenced mainly by the fact that he did not repeat the fire and that the injuries sustained by Muhammad Akram, injured were on the non-vital parts of his body. According to him, this had rendered the question of application of section 324, P.P.C. in the case against him needing serious consideration. This observation, I am clear in my mind, is not incorrect. This when was the position then the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not at all err in allowing the relief of post-arrest bail to him (respondent No.2). I may mention here that even one reason recognized in law is sufficient to grant relief to a party and not many (sic) required. Hence, I do not find that there exists any case for cancellation of bail granted to him (respondent No.2). The petition therefore, is dismissed in limine.
N.H.Q./M-2156/L Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ANSAR MEHMOOD vs ALLAH BAKHSH and another 2005 YLR 34