GHULAM MUHAMMAD and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by three applicants involved in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324 and other provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jhallo, District Dadu. At the outset, the learned counsel for the applicants did not press the bail application for the primary accused, Ghulam Muhammad, who was attributed a fatal injury, while pressing the application for the remaining two applicants, Din Muhammad and Ahmed. The core legal question pertained to whether the two applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the counter-versions, the rule of consistency based on bail granted to co-accused, and discrepancies between the medical report and the first information report. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, observing that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account in the F.I.R. regarding the nature of injuries, co-accused in both the main and counter cases had already been granted bail, and the case warranted further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted when material contradictions exist between the medical evidence and the F.I.R. allegations, alongside the application of the rule of consistency with co-accused.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the medical evidence is not in consonance with the allegations recorded in the F.I.R.?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused justify extending the benefit of bail to other accused on the rule of consistency?
- Whether the existence of counter-versions in a criminal incident supports the grant of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' This bail application has been placed before this Bench in view of the order, dated 3-12-2001 passed by the Honourable Chief Justice on the office note dated 1-12-2001.
2. ' This bail application has been moved by three applicants namely Ghulam Muhammad, Din Muhammad and Ahmed sons of Mithal who are involved in Crime No,4 of 2000 of Police Station Jhallo, District Dadu under sections 302, 324 and other sections of P.P.C. The incident is admitted by both the parties.
3. ' At the outset learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the bail application of Ghulam Muhammad who has been attributed the fatal injury to deceased Abdul Latif is not being pressed by him. He presses the bail application for applicants Din Muhammad and Ahmed. It is also contended that in this case in Criminal Bail Application No,650 of 2000 two co-accused namely Mithal and Kauro have been granted bail on 28-11-2000. He also informed that in the Crime No,5 of 2000 all the four persons involved in the matter have been allowed bail before arrest by Court of Session.
4. ' I considered the submissions of the counsel for the applicants as well as of learned counsel for the State. The latter has opposed the grant of bail.
5. According to the F.I.R. The allegations against Din Muhammad is that he caused sharp side hatchet blows to P.W. Azizullah, whereas Ahmed fired at the complainant and Azizullah. Injured Azizullah fell down after receiving the pellet injury. The medical report has been brought on record and it was examined in the Court. According to it injured Azizullah received only one injury on his parital region which has been caused with hard and blunt substance. There is no pellet injury found on his body and so also no injury caused by sharp side of the hatchet on his person.
6. ' Keeping in view of the fact that there are counter-versions; all the accused in the counter-case have been allowed bail; two accused in this case have been granted bail as observed above and that the medical report is not in consonance with the version recorded in the F.I.R. The present applicants namely Din Muhammad and Ahmed are allowed bail on each of them furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail application of Ghulam Muhammad is dismissed as not pressed.
Cited by 3 cases
- AMAN ULLAH Versus State 2009 PCrLJ 1254
- MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1068
- ASGHAR ALI vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 1060