ALLAH RAKHA vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 336 of 2000, involving charges under sections 302, 324, 337, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of being part of an unlawful assembly armed with sharp-edged weapons, sought bail after the Additional Sessions Judge declined his initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his advanced age, the nature of the injuries attributed to him, and the fact that he was placed in Column No. 2 of the police report. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was not attributed any injury to the deceased, the injuries he allegedly caused to a prosecution witness were simple, and he had been incarcerated since August 2000. Furthermore, the Court observed that the accused party had sustained numerous injuries not accounted for in the F.I.R., rendering the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Does the placement of an accused in Column No. 2 of a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle them to bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they are not attributed any fatal injury and the injuries attributed to them are simple in nature?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by the accused party constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,336 of 2000, dated 13-8-2000 under sections 302/324/337/34 registered at Police Station Yazman, District Bahawalpur.
' The allegation against the petitioner ' is that he alongwith Muhammad Afzal and others armed with Chhuras caused death of Allah Ditta and caused injuries to Riaz, Munawar, Muhammad Akbar, Talib Hussain, Muhammad Ramzan and Amjad Parvez as well as to the complainant. The petitioner applied for bail which has been declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide order, dated 19-1-2001. Hence the instant petition.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been attributed injuries on the person of P.W. Talib Hussain, which were, on his shoulder and left knee, that no injury on the person of the deceased nas been attributed to the present petitioner, that the petitioner is an old man of 77 years, as he is alleged to have been born in 1924, that name of the petitioner stands reflected in Column No,2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., that prosecution has suppressed the injuries on the person of accused party, that the complainant party has also not disclosed themselves to be armed with sharp-edged weapons though the accused party has been inflicted injuries by sharp-edged weapons as well as of blunt nature, that injuries on the person of Talib Hussain have been declared simple, that the petitioner was arrested on 15-8-2000 and since then is in jail. He thus submits that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry.
To support his contention he has also placed reliance upon 1999 SCM R 1320, Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125. Abdul Aziz v. The State 1996 SCM R 1693 and Meeran Bux v. The State and another PLD 1989 SC 347.
5. Conversely, bail application has -been opposed by the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant. To supplement his contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that F.I.R. Has been lodged with promptitude, that the petitioner is nominated accused, that petitioner has been specifically charged for causing injury on the person of Talib Hussain, that petitioner had led to the recovery of alleged weapon of offence on 15-8-2000, that the mere fact that name of petitioner appears in Column No,2 is no ground to release him on bail. He further submits that petitioner is vicariously liable being a member of the said assembly. In support of his contention he has also placed reliance upon Mozal and 11 others v.
The State 1983 PCr.LJ 64, Nasir Muhammad Wassan and another v. The State 1992 SCM R 501, Nazar Muhammad v. The State and another PLD 1978 SC 236 and Tanveer Ahmed v. Muhammad Saqib and 2 others PLD 1994 SC 88. He further submitted that opinion of the Investigating Officer placing the petitioner in Column No,2 is not binding on this Court and placed reliance upon Liaqat Ali v. The State PLD 1994 SC 172. He further submitted that challan has been submitted and trial has started, as such this fact also disentitles the petitioner to the relief sought by him and placed reliance upon Allah Ditta and others v. The State 1990 SCM R 307.
6. It is evident from the facts stated above that the petitioner has been shown to be armed with Chhuri and is said to have caused injuries to Talib Hussain on his shoulder and left knee. He has not been assigned and attributed any injury on the person of deceased. The accused party has also received injuries as Muhammad Afzal has received 4 injuries whereas his other co-accused Muhammad Ashraf and Sajjad have received 9 and 8 injuries respectively. The contents of F.I.R. Do not disclose about the infliction of so many injuries on the person of accused party.
7. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has only been attributed two simple injuries on the person of a P.W. And is in jail since 15-8-2000 and is also of advance age having been born in 1924, so all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry. Accordingly petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- BHOORO and anothers vs THE STATE 2003 MLD 125