GUL WALI vs QAZA KHAN and another
This criminal miscellaenous petition arises out of a bail application filed by the petitioner, Gul Wali, who was charged along with his brother for causing stab blow injuries to the complainant. The core legal question before the Peshawar High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the counter versions of the incident, the nature of the injuries sustained, and the completion of investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as it is yet to be established at trial whether there was premeditation for Qatl-e-Amad, the offence prima facie does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the parties are inter-related, and keeping the petitioner in custody would serve no useful purpose since investigation is complete. The key principle laid down is that where counter versions exist, the applicability of the prohibitory clause requires further inquiry at trial, and post-arrest bail should be granted when further incarceration serves no penal or investigative purpose.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when both parties have lodged counter versions of the same criminal incident?
- Does an offence falling outside the restrictive part of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle the accused to bail as a rule when investigation is complete?
- Is the question of premeditation for an attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amad to be determined at trial rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner alongwith his brother Haji Mehmood Khan are charged for causing stab blow injuries to the complainant. Since effective role in. The F.I.R. Is assigned to the petitioner, therefore, he was, refused bail. He has also lodged a report entered as Mad No, 17 dated 26-8-1997 and charged the complainant Qazi Khan 'for causing him injuries with sharp-edged weapon disclosing a different story. Qazi Khan complainant having received stab blow injuries on his shoulder, nose and finger of the left hand was admitted in the hospital for treatment on 26-8-1997 and discharged therefrom on 28-8-1997, as is evident from the discharge slip produced by the petitioner's counsel.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant has not charged the petitioner for attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amad; the non-use of pistol in commission of the crime by Haji Mehmood indicates that the incident was in fact a sudden quarrel without premeditation and with no intention to kill the complainant.
' He argued that the injury sustained by the victim and described as Ghair Jaifa Mutalahithima is punishable for imprisonment for three years and that investigation being complete, the petitioner is no more required for the said purpose.
3. In reply, the complainant's counsel submitted that the accused/petitioner is charged for inflicting stab-blow injuries to the complainant in a broad day-light the dagger was recovered during investigation and the medical report corroborates the complainant's version and, prima facie, he is guilty for committing an offence under section 324, P:P.C.
4. Learned counsel for' the state, however, adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. After going through the record and considering the arguments advanced at the bar, it is yet to be established at the trial that there was pre-meditation of committing Qatl-e-Amad of the complainant and keeping in view the injuries sustained by the complainant, the accused/petitioner has committed an offence which does not fall under the restrictive part of section 497, Cr.P.0 the parties are related inter se and there are counter versions to each other. It is yet to he seen at trial that in fact, that petitioner has aggressed upon the complainant. The dagger was produced by the complainant and, thus, did not provide a cogent corroboration. In these circumstances, keeping in custody the petitioner will serve no useful purpose, as the investigation is complete and he is no more required for the same.
6. In consequence, this application is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.