MITHAL And Another vs THE STATE
This bail application concerns two accused persons, Mithal and Kauro, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the incident, which involved cross-cases between related parties and allegations of sudden provocation. The court observed that the incident appeared to have occurred without premeditation, resulting in injuries to both sides, and that it remained to be determined which party was the aggressor. Regarding the specific roles, the court noted that applicant Mithal was alleged only to have instigated the firing without firing himself, and applicant Kauro’s gunfire allegedly hit a co-accused rather than the complainant party. Consequently, the court held that the case required further inquiry and granted bail to both applicants. The key principle laid down is that where cross-cases exist and the determination of the initial aggressor is uncertain, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the existence of cross-cases between parties in a criminal incident justify the grant of bail pending trial?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when it is unclear which party was the initial aggressor?
- Should bail be granted when the specific role attributed to an accused involves instigation without direct injury to the complainant party?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This bail application has been filed for grant of bail to accused Mithal and Kauro who were facing trial in Crime No.4 of 2000 of Police Station Jhalo, District Dadu for the offence under sections 302, 324, 337-A (ii), 337-F(i), 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C.
2. The story as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that on 28-3-2000 at about 7-45 a.m. Complainant lodged F.I.R. At Police Station Jhalo stating that prior to the present incident there was an exchange of harsh words between the complainant and his cousin Mithal over some family affairs. On the day of incident the son of the complainant namely Latif and Uris had gone to cut the grass from their own land situated near the house of accused Mithal. The complainant and his brother Azizullah and his son Sikandir also went to tube--well near their village and when they reached at tube-well they saw accused Mithal who asked the complainant not to remove the pipe from the tubewell.
While exchanging hot words by the complainant and accused persons accused Ahmed armed with gun, Ghulam Muhammad armed with SBBL gun, A.I Muhammad armed with DBBL gun, Din Muhammad and Ghulam Hyder armed with hatchets also came there. Accused Mithal instigated all the accused not to spare the complainant party and at his instigation accused Ghulam Muhammad and A.I Muhammad fired from their guns at Abdul Latif who fell down. When complainant party went towards Abdul Latif but accused Ahmed again made gunfire at Azizullah who also fell down. Accused Din Muhammad and Ghulam Hyder thereafter came running and caused hatchet blows to Azizullah and accused Ghulam Hyder caused hatchet blow to the complainant on his head. The complainant party in self-defence also caused hatchet blows to the accused. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. That accused Kauro also came there with a gun and fired at complainant party but the pallets hit co-accused Ahmed son of Mithal Mastoi. Thereafter, the accused persons made their escape good.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. A.I Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.-G. And have perused the material placed on record.
4. From the perusal of the F.I.R. It appears that there are cross-cases between the parties who appear to be pot only inter se related but residing near to each other. Contents of F.I.R. Show that the role attributed to applicant Mithal is that on his instigation the firing was started. Though he is alleged to be armed with a gun but he did not fire himself. The allegation against the applicant No.2 Kauro is that he fired from the gun but the pallets of the gun hit one of the member of the accused party. Thus, no injury was caused to the complainant party by the gun fire made by accused Kauro. Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed on record a copy of F.I.R. In Crime No. 5 of 2000 which has been lodged by the complainant' party. The incident flared up suddenly without pre-concert or premeditation, in which both the parties were injured. There are allegations and counter-allegations and it is yet to be determined which party was aggressor and which party was victim of aggression.
5. Learned Asstt: A.-G. Has conceded to the grant of bail to applicant Mithal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that this is a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the applicants Mithal and Kauro are granted bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. This bail application stands disposed of.