BASHIR AHMAD vs THE STATE
This is a criminal miscellaneous matter where two petitioners, Bashir Ahmad and Azam, sought post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No.124 registered under sections 324, 337-A, 337-L, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the injuries attributed to them, evidentiary discrepancies, and statutory delay. The Lahore High Court held that petitioner Bashir Ahmad's case fell within the purview of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 because the injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part of the body, he did not repeat fire, and there was a discrepancy regarding the recovery of the weapon, thereby granting him bail. However, the court dismissed the bail petition of Azam since he was attributed a firearm injury on a vital part of the body, specifically the neck, attracting section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The key legal principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted as a matter of further inquiry when firearm injuries are sustained on non-vital parts of the body coupled with evidentiary contradictions in weapon recoveries, whereas injuries on vital parts of the body by direct firearm shots disentitle an accused to bail at that stage.
- Whether an accused who is attributed a firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body with weapon recovery discrepancies makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a firearm injury inflicted on the neck, being a vital part of the body, attract an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no repetition of fire is attributed and the injury is located on a non-vital part of the body?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i)(ii)(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Bashir Ahmad petitioner through Criminal Miscellaneous No.779-B of 2003 and Azam petitioner vide Criminal Miscellaneous No.1085-B of 2003, have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.124 dated 26-5-2000 under sections 324/ 337-A(i)(ii)(iv)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal.
2. As both these petitions have arisen out of one and the same case, hence, are being disposed of by this single order.
3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 25-5-2000 at about 10-45 a.m. They alongwith their 15 co-accused in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them had attempted the Qatl-i-Amd of Allah Ditta, Nawab Bibi, Peer Bakhsh, Sattan Bibi, Perveen, Nusrat Bibi, Noor Zaman and Bakht Bibi by causing them injuries.
4. The motive behind the occurrence is that there was previous litigation between the parties and on grudge over the same, they have committed the above act.
5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Bashir Ahmad that he has falsely been roped in; that he has been ascribed injury with .12 bore gun to P.W. Allah Dittah at his left thigh and similarly the co-accused Babar on the back of his same thigh while there is only one wound of entry and exit on his left thigh and that would mean that only one snot was fired at him; that no .12 bore gun was recovered from him and rather pistol that all these facts essentially make his case as one of further inquiry; that he was arrested on I-3-2001 and since then is behind the bars; and that he is previous non-- convict.
6. On behalf of the petitioner Azam, it has been contended that he is in jail for the last about 19 months and so far there is no progress towards his trial while the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chichawatni vide his order dated 26-2-2003 had directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within two months by adopting all coercive measures.
7. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petitions on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that Bashir Ahmad petitioner had made straight fire with .12 bore gun at Allah Ditta P.W. Which hit on his left thigh; that Azam petitioner had also made straight fire with .12 bore gun at Nawab Bibi P.W. Hitting on the left side of her neck; that gun was recovered from Azam while pistol from Bashir Ahmad; and that the offence is heinous in nature.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
9. As regards petitioner Bashir Ahmad (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.779-B of 2003), he has been attributed fire shot with .12 bore gun to Allah Ditta P.W. Hitting on his left thigh. He did not repeat the fire to him. The injury of the said P.W. (Allah Ditta) attributed to him was on the non-vital part of his body. So, it would yet to be seen that if he can be held liable for offence under section 324, P.P.C. Or not.
10. Besides than this, the crime weapon .12 bore gun, with which he allegedly was armed at the time of occurrence has not been recovered from him and rather pistol.
11. All these facts essentially render his case as to one of further inquiry and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non- convict.
12. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. His petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No.779-B of 2003), therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
13. As regards the petitioner Azam, he has been attributed fire shot with .12 bore gun to Nawab Bibi P.W. Hitting on E her left side of the neck. So, the injury attributed to him was on the vital part of her body. Hence, apparently the offence under section 324 P.P.C is attracted against him.
14. In these circumstances, I have not been persuaded to grant relief of bail to him (Azam) at this stage. His petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1085-B of 2003) is therefore, dismissed.