RUKHSAR AHMAD vs UAZ ULLAH and another
This is a criminal petition seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, in a case arising from an FIR involving charges of attempt to commit murder and related offences. The core legal question revolves around whether bail was improperly granted in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law, considering the nature of the weapon used, the injury inflicted, and the applicable penal provisions. The Lahore High Court held that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., and that the trial court erred in granting bail. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the bail granted to respondent No. 1 was cancelled. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C., involving a firearm and attempt to murder, bail ought not to be granted lightly.
- Whether bail can be cancelled when an accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an offence under Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No,1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his order, dated 27-4-2001.
2. Facts of the case are that on 6-3-2001 at 8-30 a.m when the complainant was present in his house and his father was returning after performing Eid prayer and when he reached in front of his house, Ijaz respondent 'No,1 came there and started abusing the father of the complainant. On hearing the voices, complainant came out his house and also abused respondent No,1 in return of his abuses, on which he fired two shots with pistol on the complainant which hit on his right arm.
On the noise raised by the complainant Khawar and Arshad reached there, Ijaz was apprehended at the spot and he was confined in the house.
3. Motive behind the occurrence was that there was some dispute between the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No,1 was armed with fire-arm, he caused the injury on the arm of the complainant, that he was apprehended at the spot and taken into custody, thereafter, he was handed over to the police, that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. Because section 324, P.P.C. Is also mentioned in the F.I.R., that after being released on bail respondent No,1 was arrested in a case of narcotics by Superintendent District Jail, Sargodha when he was handing over 50 grams of heroin to one Hawalati confined in Jail, that he is a person of desperate character and having been involved in cases of narcotics ant illicit arms, that it is not a case of bail as held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 submits that petitioner did not repeat the fire, there is only one injury on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant, that it was the complainant's party, who is involved in cases of narcotics and the respondent has given an information to the police, that a case under section 342, P.P.C. Has been registered against the complainant, that challan has been submitted in the Court and the bail should not be cancelled.
6. Learned State counsel concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 .
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, respondent No,1 was armed with fire-arm, he fired two shots, one hit on the arm of the complainant, this injury was through and through, it was the good-luck of the complainant that shot did not hit on his chest. Section 324, P.P.C. Is punishable with 10 years, according to Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997, two separate punishments have been provided one is under section 324, P.P.C. If it is proved that it is a case of attempt of murder then apart from punishment under section 324, P.P.C., punishment shall also be awarded for the injuries caused on the person of injured P.W. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that learned Additional Sessions Judge was wrong in granting bail to the respondent, as offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1); Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition is accepted. Bail allowed to respondent No,1 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha is hereby cancelled. He is not present in Court today, he shall be taken into custody.
Bail cancelled.