NISAR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Nisar, who was charged under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly firing a shot at the complainant, causing injury to his right thigh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail pending trial, given the nature of the injury and the duration of his incarceration. The court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role, the trial had not yet commenced, and the charge had not been framed despite the passage of approximately four months since his arrest. The court held that bail could not be refused by way of punishment and that continued incarceration without the commencement of the trial was unjustified in the circumstances. Consequently, the court allowed the bail application, granting the petitioner bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that bail cannot be denied as a punitive measure, and prolonged pre-trial detention without the commencement of proceedings warrants the grant of bail.
- Can bail be refused to an accused person as a form of punishment?
- Does the absence of charge framing after four months of incarceration justify the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the injury caused is not on a vital part of the body?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
On 11‑5‑2003 at 8‑40 p.m. Rashid Imran complainant stated before Muhammad Faraz, S.‑I., Police Station Kahuta, that he is a land owner and came to Jewra to buy cigarette at a shop whereafter he was going towards his home when pat 6‑15 p.m. he reached near the Ziarat of Pir Gharanda, the petitioner was lying in ambush and came out armed with a .30 bore pistol abused him and told him that he will kill him and fired a shot which hit him on the right thigh. He was grievously injured and on his hue and cry the persons mentioned in the F.I.R. came there whereupon the petitioner ran away. The motive was stated to be the bad character of the petitioner who had abused the complainant a few days ago and some on going litigation between families. A case under section 324; P.P.C. was registered vide F.I.R. No.120 dated 11‑5‑2003 at Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. The petitioner was arrested. A learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed his bail on 23‑7‑2003 while a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed his bail plea on 26‑8‑2003.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury was not caused on the vital part of the body and the contents of the F.I.R. do not indicate that the petitioner intended to cause the death of the injured complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, states that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role and he fired the pistol with an intention to kill his client. Learned State Counsel also opposes the bail application.
3. I have gone through the records. According to the F.I.R., the injury was located on the front of middle of the right thigh (Entry wound) with corresponding exit on the back of the middle of the right thigh. The learned Additional Sessions. Judge as well as the learned Magistrate have observed in their respective orders that the challan has been prepared and submitted. However, I am told that till date even the charge has not been framed. This being so, at the moment about four months incarceration without trial is sufficient punishment. I would not comment much on the said pleas in view of the pending trial which is to commence. However, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State 1994 SCMR 2051 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the moment does support the said contention. One thing is certain that bail cannot be refused by way of punishment. The bail application accordingly is allowed and the petitioner is granted ban subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./351/L Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- QUTUB KHAN vs THE STATE and 3 others 2009 P Cr. L J 401
- MUJAHID alias BILLA vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 1449