AZEEM Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by applicants Azeem and Muhammad Siddique, who were charged with offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, following an alleged attack on police constables. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the alleged discrepancies between the medical evidence and the oral testimony regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the complainant. The court held that while the injury on the complainant's forehead was vital, the medical evidence contradicted the oral allegation that the injury was caused by a sharp-sided hatchet, as the medical report indicated a blunt force trauma. Furthermore, noting that no recovery was made from applicant Azeem, the court determined his case required further inquiry and granted him bail. Conversely, the court dismissed the bail application for Muhammad Siddique, citing the recovery of the crime weapon from him, while directing the trial court to expedite the examination of eye-witnesses.
- Does a discrepancy between medical evidence and oral testimony regarding the nature of injuries entitle an accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Is the absence of recovery of a crime weapon from an accused sufficient grounds to grant bail when the case requires further inquiry?
- Can a bail application be dismissed with a direction to the trial court to expedite the examination of witnesses?
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. Applicants have sought bail in a case for an offence punishable under sections 353, 147, 148, 149 and 324, P.P.C. and 17(3), Offences Against Property (EOH) Ordinance.
2. The allegations as per F.I.R. briefly stated, are that complainant Allah Bux and three other constables were posted at Moolchand Check Post. On 20‑4‑2003 while the ‑complainant and P.C. Muhammad Qasim were on patrol, they spotted three suspected persons and followed them and went towards the house of Khoso community. In support of the suspects, accused Nawaz Khoso armed with pistol, Azeem Khoso and Siddiqye Khoso armed with hatchets and seven unidentified persons came out of the houses and from amongst them‑ Nawaz fired from his pistol while Azeem and Siddique inflicted sharp sided hatchet blows upon the complainant. It is further alleged that the others .caused Lathi blows to P.C. Muhammad Qasim. The motorcycle of police party was also snatched forcibly. It is the case of prosecution that the motorcycle was secured from house of Nawaz who was shown as absconder in the challan.
3. I have heard Mr: Muhammad Ishaque Khoso and Mr. Mashooq Ali Samo and perused the papers. The learned State Counsel pointed out that only three persons have been challaned in this case and hatchet has been secured from Siddique. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that sharp sided hatchet blow is attributed to the applicants but the injury on the head of complainant, as per medical certificate, is caused by a hard and blunt substance, therefore, the conflict between medical and oral evidence be resolved in favour of accused and they may be extended benefit of doubt. The learned State Counsel opposed the bail.
4. The allegation that P.C. Qasim was also given Lathi blows is not supported by medical evidence. The blows are ascribed to Azeem and Siddique both, but there is only one injury caused with hard and blunt substance. The recovery of hatchet has been made from Siddique but as far the case of Azeem is concerned there is no recovery from him. In the circumstances, the injury on forehead being vital part of the body cannot be overlooked. The recovery of crime weapon is from Siddique alone. The case of Azeem would require further inquiry; he is, therefore, granted bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in sum of Rs:50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court.
5. While dismissing the application for bail on behalf of Muhammad Siddique it is directed that the trial Court should examine both the eye‑witnesses within a period of two months of receipt of this order. After the said period the applicant would be at liberty to repeat the bail application on whatsoever grounds available to him. The application stands disposed of.
6. N.H.Q./A‑520/K Order accordingly.