MAHAMAND vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 324, 337-A(ii), and 337-F(vi)-(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a fight over agricultural land. The petitioner was initially granted bail by a Magistrate, but it was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge due to the petitioner's alleged avoidance of court notices. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of cross-versions of the incident, the nature of the injury, and the petitioner's prior conduct. The Court held that because the petitioner's sons also sustained injuries that were not mentioned in the FIR, and the trial court had summoned the complainant party as accused, the matter constituted a case of two versions requiring further inquiry. Furthermore, the single injury attributed to the petitioner was not on a vital part of the body and was not declared dangerous to life. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, ruling that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the existence of a cross-version of an incident entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can a case of two versions be considered a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the injury attributed to the accused is not on a vital part of the body and not declared dangerous to life?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi)-(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Mahamand son of Mehmood, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,295 of 2000 registered, at Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal, for offences under sections 324134, 337-A
(ii) and 337-F (vi)-(iv), P.P.C., on 30-7-2000.
2. Briefly, the allegation as levelle,d against the petitioner is that he caused fire-arm injury on the left forearm of Muhammad Nasir, son of the complainant. It is further revealed from the F.I.R. that a tight ensued on the issue of levelling of the embankment of the agricultural land and during tight Muhammad Nasir, Muhammad Iqbal and Nazar Hussain received injuries on their persons at the hands of the petitioners and his there co-accused.
3. The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail by the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 22-12- 2000 and the same was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala vide order dated 13-2-2001, on the sole ground that he was wilfully avoiding the service of the notice issued by the Court to him. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail and the same was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirwala, vide order dated 26-10-2001. Hence this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there was only one single injury attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner though was armed with a gun, did not repeat tire. He has further stated that the fire landed on the left forearm of Muhammad Nasir, which is not on the vital part of the body, was not declared dangerous to life. He has also stated that four sons of the petitioners received injuries during the fight and a cross-version about the same occurrence was recorded by the police but as the police sided with the complainant party, Ghulam Abbas, accused-real brother of the petitioner, has tiled a complaint, wherein the complainant party has been summoned as accused by the trial Court and therefore, it will be seen during trial, which side was aggressor.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail. He has stated that the matter was reported to police without any delay.
Specific role attributed to the petitioner is sufficiently born out from the medical evidence. Similarly, the weapon used during the occurrence has also been recovered from the petitioner and as he wilfully avoided the service of the notice issued by the Court for all practical purposes he was fugitive from law. therefore. he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He has further emphasised that section 324, P.P.C. squarely, in the circumstances of the case. attracts the provisions of prohibitory clause of section 497, C.P.C. and in such-like cases the refusal of the hail should he a rule.
6. The learned counsel for the State follows the line of arguments of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that four sons of the petitioner received injuries at the hands of the complainant party, which are the incised wounds and landed on their heads. All these injuries were not mentioned in the F.I.R.
After holding an inquiry, the trial Court has summoned the complainant party as accused in the case, therefore, it has no become a case of two versions. Admittedly. Mahammand petitioner, did not repeat the tire and although I the injury caused by him landed on the left forearm of Muhammad, Nasir yet the same was not declared dangerous to life.
8. In these circumstances, the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the .purview of subsection (2) to section 497. C.P.C.. therefore. I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.