SHABBIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Shabbir, who is facing trial before the Sessions Judge, Dadu, for offences under sections 302, 324, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the grant of bail given the specific nature of the allegations and the medical evidence presented. The applicant argued that while he was named in the First Information Report, the injuries attributed to him were only simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt substance to three prosecution witnesses, with no injuries attributed to him regarding the two deceased persons. The State opposed the bail but did not contest the factual assertions regarding the nature of the injuries. The Court held that since the applicant was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased and the injuries attributed to him were simple in nature, it was a fit case for the grant of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail subject to the furnishing of a surety bond.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the injuries attributed to them are simple and not related to the deceased victims?
- Does the absence of specific injury attribution to deceased persons in a murder case constitute a ground for bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution does not contest the factual basis regarding the nature of injuries presented by the defense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Shabbir son of Muhammad Younsif Khoso, is facing trial in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Dadu, for the offence under sections 302, 324, 114, P.P.C., alongwith four co-accused.
2. ' Mr. Shafi Muhammad, has submitted that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. But the role attributed to him is of causing injuries to three prosecution witnesses namely Zulfiqar, Mumtaz and Mst. Naziran. He has further submitted that no injuries are attributed to applicant on the person of Soomar and Ghulam Nabi. The learned counsel has contended that according to Medical Certificate, the three injured witnesses Zulfigar, Mumtaz and Mst. Naziran, had sustained simple injuries with hard and blunt substance. He has, therefore, submitted that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail who was arrested on 17-9-2000.
3. ' Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant but he has not denied the facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant.
4. 'Since the applicant has not caused any injury to the two deceased persons and is alleged to have caused simple injuries to three prosecution witnesses with hard and blunt substance, therefore, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail and consequently the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount, on furnishing one surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- NAZEER Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 42
- GHULAM DASTAGIR Versus State 2017 YLRN 197
- NABI BUX alias NABU vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 1531