NAMDAR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Namdar, who is facing trial for offences under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, and 50 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have caused lathi blows, was entitled to bail given that the fatal injuries were specifically attributed to other co-accused who allegedly used hatchets. The court observed that while the medical report indicated three head injuries, the specific fatal injury appeared to be caused by a hard and blunt substance, potentially consistent with the blunt side of a hatchet. Finding that the applicant's role was distinguishable from the co-accused who inflicted the hatchet blows and noting the applicant's period of incarceration, the court held that the applicant was entitled to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the role of an accused is distinguishable from those who inflicted fatal injuries, and where the medical evidence creates ambiguity regarding the specific weapon used by the applicant, a case for further inquiry is made out, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the fatal injuries are specifically attributed to other co-accused?
- Does a discrepancy between ocular allegations and medical evidence regarding the weapon used justify the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 403, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 50, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Bail is sought by the applicant Namdar son of Pahraz Bangulani, facing trial in Crime No. 125 of 2004, offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, 50, P.P.C.
2. Allegation against the present applicant is of causing Lathi blow on .the deceased Ghulam Muhammad. In the F.I.R. specific allegation causing, hatchet blow were made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal. Whereas other five accused including present applicant is alleged to have caused Lathi blow on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the medical report shows that the deceased received three injuries on his head. According to him all the injuries are attributed to the persons who are accused of causing hatchet blow, as alleged. Learned State Counsel urged that conflict in ocular and medical evidence cannot be determined at this bail stage and it can only be collected at trial.
3. Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant transpires in F.I.R. and overt act has been attributed to him.
4. Having heard the arguments and perused the record from the contents of the F.I.R. it is apparent that specific allegation of causing hatchet blow are made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal to have caused and inflicted blow on the head of deceased. Medical evidence apparently shows three injuries, on the head. Though the injury that has been shown as fatal appears to have been caused by the hard and blunt substance and there is possibility that such may be the other side of the hatchet. Applicant appears to have been apprehended on 2-11-2003, and is behind bars since then other, accused persons are still at large. The case as argued by the applicant's counsel makes out a case where in my opinion applicant becomes entitle to claim bail. Accordingly, the applicant is extended benefit of bail. However, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. In case the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the learned) trial Court may cancel the bail.
6. H.B.T./N-30/K Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1875