WALI MUHAMMAD and another Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Wali Muhammad and Rana, who were charged under sections 324, 337-L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought bail after the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed their initial application. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, including the age of one petitioner, the nature of the injuries, and the delay in reporting the incident. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court observed that there was an unexplained thirty-hour delay in reporting the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that one petitioner was a minor (aged 14/15), bringing him within the protective scope of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding the other petitioner, the Court found the medical evidence inconsistent with the alleged weapon usage, as the injuries were merely petty abrasions. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish a strong case for continued incarceration.
- Does the age of an accused person under sixteen years entitle them to bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when there is an unexplained inordinate delay in reporting the crime to the police?
- Does a discrepancy between the alleged weapon used and the medical nature of the injuries support a grant of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Wali Muhammad and Rana-petitioners alongwith Saadi Ahmed,' stand involved in Crime Report No,562, dated 23-8-2001 under sections 324/337-L(2)/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad;" at the instance of one Ghulam Murtaza.
The petitioners could be arrested by the police on 3-9-2001 during course of investigation. They preferred their application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge, for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge after taking everything into his full consideration proceeded to dismiss the same by means of his order dated 30-11-2001, on the basis of multifarious reasons contained in the order itself. Now they have approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argues that ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence; that no injury is attributed to Rana-petitioner although he was armed with pistol; that he is aged about 14/15 years; that no 'recoveries were made from both the petitioners; that even in report under section 173, Cr.P.C. those facts find mention; that although they were available at the spot during occurrence, but their participation is " through inactivity" and that they are behind the bars for the last ten months and twenty two days and only one formal witness could be examined by the trial Court.
4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that names of both the petitioners are mentioned in the F.I.R. with specific roles and that their case falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have courteously heard and soberly considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. Admittedly, there is thirty hours inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Rana is 14/15 years of age according to the police record. His case squarely falls within the provisions of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which deals with persons under sixteen years of age, women and all those who are sick or infirm. Wali Muhammad was allegedly armed with a hatchet and according to F.I.R. by making use of the same, he inflicted two injuries on the person of Said Hassan, on his right wrist and back of chest. Both the injuries are in the form of petty abrasions.
Hatchet is a heavy sharp-edge weapon and abrasion can hardly be caused by forceful blows of hatchet. They are not stated to have played any part during course of incident as contained in report under section 173, Cr.P.C. For all these reasons, I am of the firm view that a strong case for bail is made out '
6. Accordingly, by accepting this petition, I direct release of the petitioners on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum or Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.