MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Riaz, who was accused of committing an offense involving physical assault. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted and the statutory prohibitions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, that the weapon recovered (a 'Sota') differed from the one alleged in the F.I.R. (a hatchet), and that the investigation was delayed. The court, upon reviewing the arguments, held that the petitioner had inflicted two injuries on the head of the injured party, which is a vital part of the body. Consequently, the court determined that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and that Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was fully attracted. The court dismissed the bail application, establishing that where an accused is charged with a serious offense involving vital body parts, bail is not warranted.
- Does an offense involving injuries to a vital part of the body fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail grantable when an accused is charged with an offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 involving head injuries?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. That according to the F.I.R. Petitioner was armed with hatchet but "Sota" was recovered from him, that he has been falsely implicated, that he is behind the bars for the last three months and that challan has not been submitted before the trial Court.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that merciless beating was given to the injured and petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner was armed with hatchet, he gave two injuries on the head of injured which is a most vital part of the body, section 324, P.P.C. Is fully attracted in this case, offence falls within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.