JUMMAN alias JUMMOO vs THE STATE
This criminal matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Jumman alias Jummoo, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving an alleged firearm injury inflicted upon the victim Muhammad Saeed. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail, considering the nature of the injury sustained on the thigh, previous bail grants to co-accused, and existing enmity between the parties. The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail and dismissed the application. The key principle laid down is that every part of the human body constitutes a vital part in relation to the sustaining of a firearm injury, and the medical certificate supporting the first information report regarding a firearm injury on a non-vital seeming area like the thigh precludes the grant of post-arrest bail when the case is distinguishable from co-accused.
- Is every part of the human body considered a vital part in relation to the sustaining of a firearm injury?
- Does an injury to the thigh from a firearm disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether parity with co-accused applies when their cases are distinguishable from the applicant?
ORDER
1. Granted.
2. Granted for the time being subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applicant Jumman is alleged to have caused a gun shot injury to Muhammad Saeed by firing from his gun on 25-8-2002 at 10 a.m. Such report was lodged by his father complainant Muhammad Mithal at Police Station Ahmedpur.
It was argued that some of the co-accused were granted pre-arrest bail by this Court whereas others have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. It was urged that the injury caused to the injured was on his thing which was not a vital part of the body and that there was enmity between the parties. Reliance was placed upon. 2002 M LD 150.
M/s. Ghulam Shabir Shar, learned e. counsel for the State and Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja for the complainant, have opposed the bail plea stating the injured is in his teens and he has been disabled permanently. 'I would not agree with the contentions of the defence that thigh is not a vital part of the body. No dictum is cited in support of the contention. To me, every part of the body of a person would be a vital part in relation to sustaining of a fire-arm injury. The medical certificate shows a fire-arm injury upon the thigh of the injured, which supports the F.I.R. version.
The co-accused were granted bail as their cases were distinguishable from the case of the present applicant. The applicant is not entitled to bail. His bail application is dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Tariq vs State & 1 another 2017 PHC 582
- TARIQ vs The STATE and another 2018 YLR 578
- BARKAT ALI Versus State 2017 YLRN 32
- HABIBULLAH SHAR vs The STATE 2014 MLD 1454
- OWAISULLAH KHAN and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 586
- AMAN alias AMU alias AMANULLAH and another vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 1778