HAMEED AKHTAR alias MAGGU vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Hameed Akhtar, who was charged under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving firearm injuries to the complainant party. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the existence of a cross-case, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the fact that the complainant party members involved in the cross-case had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that where both parties are involved in a cross-case and the determination of the aggressor is a matter to be decided at trial, the principle of consistency applies. Since the accused in the cross-case were already on bail, and the investigation suggested a potential conflict regarding the identity of the aggressor, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner without delving into the merits of the case, subject to the furnishing of security.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the complainant party in a cross-case has already been granted bail?
- Does the determination of the aggressor in a cross-case require a full trial rather than a summary decision at the bail stage?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation indicates conflicting versions of the incident regarding who initiated the aggression?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
As per F.I.R. On 25-8-2003, petitioner alongwith his co-accused while armed with different weapons caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Shabbir gm of Muhammad Sharif, P.W. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired at Muhammad Shabbir, with his pistol which hit him near his left ankle. The petitioner was arrested on 4-10-2003. Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that according to prosecution case petitioner fired at, Muhammad Shabbir P.W. Which hit him near his left ankle which is not a vital part therefore, no offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is made and that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause. He contended that in fact complainant party is aggressor as they attacked the accused party and caused injuries on the persons of Hameed Akhtar, Aman Ullah and Muhammad Ismail. He further contended that Muhammad Shabbir, Khalid Mehmood and Muhammad Aslam of complainant party have been challaned in the cross-case and it would be seen at the time of trial that who was aggressor. He has relied upon the case of Muhammad Afsar v. The State (1994 SCM R 2051). He has argued that aforesaid persons of complainant party are on bail, therefore, petitioner too deserves concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. That he alongwith his co-accused caused fire-arm injuries on the person of Muhammad Shabbir and that MLR does not indicate any injury on Ile person of Hamid Akhtar allegedly caused by a hatchet.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As per F.I.R. Petitioner and his co-accused while armed with different weapons attacked complainant party and petitioner fired at Muhammad Shabbir, which hit him near his left ankle. As stated earlier Muhammad Shabbir, Khalid Mehmood and Arif belonging to complainant party have also been challenged in the cross-case. Learned counsel for the State submits that last investigation was conducted by Anees-ur-Rehman, D.S.P. (Investigation), Sheikhupura and according to case diary, dated 28-10-2003 complainant party gave beating to Hamid Akhtar, whereupon he (Hamid Akhtar petitioner) fired at Muhammad Shabbir, P.W. Admittedly accused in the cross-case are on bail. It would be seen at the time of trial that who was aggressor. Muhammad Ismail and Aman Ullah are named in the F.I.R. But S.H.O. Present in Court states that during investigation they were found to be innocent and their names have been placed in Column No,2 of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.
As such application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No, 462 of 2003 under sections 324, 148 and 149, P.PC.. Registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran District Sheikhupura) subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs,80,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and another vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 47