KHIZAR SULTAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Khizar Sultan, who was charged under Sections 324, 149, 34, and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Karorh Lal Eesan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the delay in the commencement of the trial. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was caused by the butt of a pistol, was declared simple in nature, and was inflicted on a non-vital part of the complainant's body. Furthermore, the Court noted that the allegation of ineffective firing required further inquiry and that the petitioner's actions did not demonstrate a clear intention to kill. Considering the petitioner had been incarcerated for over three months without the trial commencing, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The judgment affirms the principle that where injuries are simple and non-vital, and trial delay is significant, bail is appropriate.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the injury attributed to them is simple and on a non-vital part of the body?
- Does the use of a pistol butt rather than a firearm suggest a lack of intent to kill for the purpose of bail?
- Should bail be granted when an accused has been in custody for several months and the trial has not yet commenced?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Khizar Sultan petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,131 dated 4-6-2001 registered under sections 324, 149/34 and 336, P.P.C. At Police Station Karorh Lal Eesan, District Layyah.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story as alleged by the complainant Kafayet Ullah son of Muhammad Aslam is that he alongwith Kafayat Ullah son of Abdullah (injured P.W.) was coming to their house from Wagon Stand Daphhi Makeri, that when they reached near the land of Malik Rehm Isra, Tahir Saleem co-accused armed with carbine and petitioner armed with pistol suddenly came there on a motorcycle. The vehicle was being driven by Tahir Saleem co-accused who stopped it near the complainant and both the accused disembarked from it. Tahir Saleem co-accused raised Lalkara that the complainant would be taught a lesson for causing insult to his uncle Shamim Akhtar. Then he fired at Kafayat Ullah son of Abdullah (injured P.W.) hitting his right eye, whereupon, he fell down.
Petitioner fired at the complainant but missed the target. Tahir Saleem co-accused aimed carbine towards the complainant and raised Lalkara that if he interfered, he would be murdered. Then petitioner hit the complainant with butt of his pistol on his left arm and threatened to run away. On hue and cry raised by the complainant and injured P.W. Asghar and Ehsan Ullah were attracted to the place of occurrence. On their arrival, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence while sitting on the motorcycle making, ineffective firing.
' The motive of the occurrence is that 26/28 days earlier, some altercation took place between Shamim Akhtar son of Muhammad Nawaz and Kafayat Ullah and to avenge the insult, Tahir Saleem and Khizar Sultan with the connivance of Shamim Akhtar attacked the complainant and caused injuries to the complainant and Kafayat Ullah son of Abdullah.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is alleged to have caused injury to the Kafayat Ullah son of Muhammad Aslam, complainant on his left arm with butt of the pistol; that said injury was declared simple in nature; that the allegation of ineffective firing, levelled against the petitioner is false, he was arrested on 14-5-2001 but the trial has not commenced so far.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail.
5. Heard. Record perused. The perusal of the record shows that the petitioner caused injury with butt of the pistol to the complainant on his left arm. Said injury was simple in nature and on non- vital part of the complainant. Tahir Saleem, co-accused who caused injury to Kafayat Ullah son of Abdullah, injured P.W. Is in jail and has not applied for bail. The allegation against the petitioner that he fired at the complainant which missed needs further enquiry. Use of butt of the pistol by the petitioner shows that he had no intention to kill the complainant or his companion. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than three months but the trial has not commenced so far.
6. For the reasons stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.