SHAHID MAHMOOD alias SHAHID IMRAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving a rifle shot injury. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the nature of the injury, the duration of his incarceration, and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body, the injured party was discharged from the hospital shortly after admission, and the co-accused with an identical role had already been released on bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over six months, the challan had been submitted, and the trial had not yet commenced. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing the principle of consistency and the lack of immediate necessity for continued detention pending trial.
- Does the principle of consistency entitle a petitioner to bail when a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
- Is the infliction of an injury on a non-vital part of the body a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the delay in the commencement of a trial justify the grant of bail after the submission of the challan?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner having been arrested in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,272 of 24-10-1997 under section 324/337-F(iii)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station vanike Tarrar District Hafizabad alleging causation of a rifle shot injury by the petitioner on left elbow of the complainant's brother Fida Hussain while engaged in peddy field to whom his brother Hameed Ahmed supplemented likewise injury on the left flank as members of an unlawful assembly around 4-00 p.m. On the preceding evening with a view to avenging the altercation ensued between the petitioner and the injured over damaging of peddy crops 3/4 days-ago, has sought bail.
2. Contending that locale of the ascribed injury is on non-vital part for which the injured was relieved a day after from the District Headquarters Hospital and got himself privately treated and was discharged a day later; consistency viz. Co-accused Hamid with identical role though on account of minority having been released on bail by a Judicial Magistrate 5-months ago i,e, on 6- 1-1998, he too is entitled to the concession having served more than 6-months and with the submission of challan is no more required by the Investigating Agency commencement of trial whereof is not in sight.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the state reiterating the prosecution story without dislodging the contentions urged upon instructions imparted by the police official in attendance equipped with the record, persuaded whereby the petitioner is allowed bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.