NADEEM AKHTAR alias KULA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous petitions for post-arrest bail filed by several accused persons in a case involving firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of specific roles attributed to them in the First Information Report, the medical evidence of serious injuries, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. The Court observed that the petitioners were named in the First Information Report with specific roles assigned, and the medical evidence corroborated the serious nature of the injuries, including fractures. While acknowledging that police opinions are not binding on the court, the judge noted that one petitioner, Nadeem alias Kula, had been found innocent by the police, and his attributed role was contradicted by medical evidence. Consequently, the Court held that the case of Nadeem alias Kula warranted the confirmation of his interim bail, whereas the bail applications of the other petitioners were dismissed due to the gravity of the offense and the specific roles attributed to them.
- Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does the presence of specific roles attributed in the First Information Report and corroborated by medical evidence justify the refusal of bail?
- Can interim bail be confirmed for an accused whose attributed role is contradicted by medical evidence despite being named in the First Information Report?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,5870/B of 2001 titled as Nadeem Akhtar v. The State and Criminal Miscellaneous No,5708/B of 2001 titled as Muhamd Rafique etc. v. The State.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that they all armed with fire-arm i,e, 30 bore pistol fired on shot each on the person of Ijaz P.W. which hit him on the different parts of his body two on his abdomen one on his neck and one on his buttock.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, that Nadeem Mochi and Bao Kala were the actual culprits in the instant case while the rest of the petitioners are innocent, that they are involved in this case due to election rivalry and they have been made escape goat, that ca e of the petitioner is of further inquiry fallng under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. that injury No, 2 is an exit wound.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitoners are named in the F.I.R., specific oles are attributed to them, that consideration s for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different, that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, all the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., specific roles are attributed to them, there are two fractures, one on the neck and the other of femur bone, that Ijaz injured was taken to the hospital, his condition was very serious, he was also operated upon. I have gone through the case diaries. In the instant case, one of he accused Nadeem alias Kula who according of learned counsel was attributed injury No, has also been found innocent by the police though opinion of the police is not binding on the Court but the role attributed to hi has also been gated through medical evidence and the opinion in his favour of the police.
6. In this view of the matte interim bail already granted to Nadeem alias Kula is hereby confirmed while interim bail already granted to other three petitioners is dismissed.