SHER KHAN and 2 otherss vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by three petitioners charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Hangu. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to bail because three individuals were charged for only two injuries, without specific attribution of the effective fire. The State opposed the application, arguing that the petitioners were directly charged and had absconded following the incident. Upon review, the Court observed that the attribution of the injuries and the specific intent of the accused remained unclear, particularly as the injuries were not located on vital parts of the body. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, noting the common tendency to implicate multiple persons indiscriminately. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, granting bail to the petitioners subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the amount of Rs. 300,000 each, with the requirement that sureties be local, reliable, and men of means.
- Does the charging of multiple accused for fewer injuries than the number of accused persons constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the injuries sustained by the complainant are not on vital parts of the body?
- Is the specific attribution of an effective fire necessary to determine the entitlement to bail in a case involving multiple accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' The petitioners who are charged in a case registered against them under sections 324/34, P.P.C., vide F.I.R. No,685 dated 6-8-2002, Police Station, Hangu, seek their release on bail mainly on the ground that for two injuries as many as three persons have been charged without specifying as to whose fire turned effective.
2. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioners being directly charged are not entitled to be released on bail especially when they became fugitive from law after the commission of the crime.
3. I have gone through the record and carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. The record reveals that there are two injuries on the person of the complainant for which as many as three persons have been charged. Whether it could be the doing of one person or more than one; whose tire turned effective, if at all.They were present and whether they can be saddled with the intention to kill the complainant when the injuries are not on the vital part of the body, are the questions which essentially require further inquiry particularly when the possibility, at the moment, of false implication in view the tendency of the people to throw wide the net of implication to rope in even those who have no hand in the commission of the crime, cannot be ruled out.
5. For the reasons discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, if they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rs, Three lacs) each in the'like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who is to ensure that me sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 6 cases
- NAKAF alias NAQAB KHAN vs The STATE and another 2018 YLR 1765
- NAIMAT ULLAH and 2 others vs THE STATE and another 2011 MLD 935
- QISMAT ALI KHAN and anothers vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN through legal 2010 YLR 829
- KHAN SARDAR and another vs THE STATE and another 2009 YLR 1076
- INAYAT ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE through Advocate-General N.W.F.-P. and another 2008 MLD 1358
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State 2005 PCrLJ 1797