AIJAZ alias MEER and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by applicants charged under Sections 324, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of their initial bail plea by the trial court. The prosecution alleged that the applicants intercepted the complainant and inflicted injuries with lathis, claiming an attempt to murder. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident. The Court held that the case required further inquiry because the specific injury on the complainant's head was not attributed to any particular accused, and the applicants had been in custody since August 1999. Furthermore, the Court noted that the injuries were classified as Shuja-e-Madiah and Shuja-e-Khafifa, and the applicants had not utilized their opportunity to kill the complainant despite having the chance. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the intent to murder is questionable and specific attribution of a vital injury is absent, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of specific attribution of a head injury to a particular accused warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a case eligible for further inquiry when the prosecution's claim of intent to murder is contradicted by the circumstances of the assault?
- Can bail be granted when the injuries sustained are classified as Shuja-e-Madiah and Shuja-e-Khafifa despite charges under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The applicants, who are accused in Crime No.57 of 1999 of Police Station, Husri, are charged for the offences under sections 324, 504 and 34, P.P.C. Bail application moved by them before the trial Court was rejected vide order dated 19-1-2000.
2. ' According to the prosecution story on 24-8-1999 when the complainant GhulaM Haider was on his way, the two applicants alongwith one Muhammad alias Dadoo, coming in a bullock-cart intercepted him and caused him lathi blows ,on his head and back parts of his body. On his cries Chibbar son of Gullan and Tharo son of Qadir Bux were attracted and on seeing them the culprits went away. According to the complainant this was an attempt to kill him.
3. ' Mr. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicants contends that section 324, P.P.C. Has been mala fidely applied by the police as according to the prosecutions own case the applicants were only armed with lathies and the injuries which have been attributed to them have been certified as Shuja-e-Madiah and Shuja -e-Khafifa. In case the applicants had any intention to kill the complainant then at the relevant time the complainant was at their mercy. According to learned counsel the complainant has enmity with the applicants and for that reason he has falsely involved them in this crime.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, the learned State counsel, after going through the relevant police papers, does not oppose this bail application.
5. ' Mr. Ahmed Ali Sheikh, the learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposes this bail application. He submits that one injury caused to the complainant was on his head, which is a vital part of the body and, therefore, section 324, P.P.C., which prescribes imprisonment up to 10 years, has been rightly applied in the case and the applicants are not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. ' I have considered the arguments advanced before me and perused the record.
7. The two applicants are in custody since 29-8-1999. The injuries attributed to them have been certified by the doctor as Shuja-e-Madiah which prescribes maximum punishment of five years and Shuja-eKhafifa which is bailable. Admittedly the applicants, at the time of occurrence were armed with lathies and there was none at the time of occurrence who could have saved the complainant in case the applicants had any intention to kill him. The injury caused on the head of the complainant has not been specifically attributed to any of the three accused. In such circumstances, the case of the applicants needs further inquiry and, therefore, they are entitled for the concession of bail. Accordingly this application is allowed. The applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.