FAISAL BASHIR vs STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging that the petitioner caused firearm injuries to three individuals. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of self-defense, parity with co-accused, and the simple nature of injuries. The State opposed the application, highlighting the petitioner's specific role in firing at vital parts of the victims, corroborated by medical reports. The Court held that where the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and medical evidence corroborates the allegations of firing at multiple victims in a single transaction, the case does not warrant the grant of bail. The Court further determined that claims of self-defense or cross-version arguments require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is premature at the bail stage and must be reserved for the trial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the request for bail.
- Whether a plea of self-defense can be accepted at the bail stage without deeper appreciation of evidence?
- Does the specific attribution of firearm injuries to multiple victims in an FIR disentitle an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted when the medical evidence corroborates the allegations made in the FIR?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' A case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Is registered against the petitioner and other at P.S. Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh vide F.I.R. No,147 of 1998, dated 27-5-1998.
2. It is contended that the petitioner acted in self-defence; that his co-accused with almost similar role have already been admitted to bail and that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are of simple nature; and lastly that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 8 months.
3. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he caused injuries to three persons while armed with a pistol at the vital parts of the injured P.Ws.; that the story of the defence raised at this stage cannot be taken into consideration as it requires deeper appreciation of merits of the case.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He was armed with a pistol and he opened fire at the complainant namely Imran Ali and caused him two injuries hitting on his back. He also opened fire with the pistol on the father of the complainant namely Salamat Ali hitting him in the abdomen and when a friend of father of the complainant namely Shakoor-ul-Islam tried to intervene, he was also caused fire-arm injury by the petitioner.
The MLRs of the injured persons corroborate the injuries attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. The bullet with which the complainant suffered injury is still in his abdomen. As such, the petitioner acted desperately by causing fire-arm injuries to three persons in the same transaction and as such, has no case for bail on merits. The question of cross-version that the petitioner acted in self- defence as the apprehended damage of his property would require deeper appreciation after the matter is finally examined when the trial is concluded. The petition being meritless is dismissed.