ARIF vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an F.I.R. alleging he was armed with a danda and inflicted a blow on the deceased's left arm. The petitioner's counsel argued that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version, as the deceased sustained no blunt weapon injuries, and further noted that no recovery of the alleged weapon was made from the petitioner. The complainant's counsel conceded these points, acknowledging the absence of blunt weapon injuries and the lack of recovery. Finding that the prosecution's case against the petitioner required further enquiry, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court established the principle that where the medical evidence fails to corroborate the specific allegations of injury attributed to an accused, and where there is a lack of recovery of the alleged weapon, the case against the accused warrants further enquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of medical evidence corroborating an alleged blunt weapon injury justify the grant of bail?
- Is the failure to recover an alleged weapon a ground for admitting an accused to further enquiry and bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner is accused of an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,126 of 2000 registered with Police Station, Kandiwal, District Jhang. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with Danda and inflicted Danda blow on left arm of the deceased. According to the learned counsel the allegation does not find support from the medical evidence, as the deceased did not receive any blunt weapon injury on his person. Further submits that no recovery of any.
Danda has been effected from the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant could not rebut the submission and concedes that no blunt weapon injury has been received by the deceased. It is also conceded that no recovery of Danda was effected from him. In view of these facts, I am of the view that case against the petitioner is open to further enquiry. He is, therefore, admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot.