KAMRAN MASIH vs STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Kamran Masih seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 408 dated 19.10.2002 registered under Sections 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of injuries, a cross-version of the incident, a discrepancy in the medico-legal report, and the completion of investigation. The Lahore High Court held that since the injuries were not on vital parts, the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further inquiry, especially in light of contradictory versions, a separate FIR, medical discrepancies regarding the weapon used, and previous police findings of innocence. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing suitable bail bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further inquiry at trial?
- Does the existence of a cross-version and a separate FIR make the prosecution's case subject to further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- What is the effect of a discrepancy between the weapon alleged in the FIR and the weapon described in the medico-legal report on a bail application?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner seek his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 408 dated 19.10.2002 registered under Sections 324/337-F (v)/337F (i)/34 PPC at Police Station Harappa District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely involved in this case; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, that it is a case of cross version wherein the mother of the petitioner received injuries; that co- accused of the petitioner namely Aamer and Sohail had been found innocent during the investigation which makes the case of prosecution doubtful, that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 4 months and the investigation is complete and challan has been submitted and petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly, opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. The record reveals that injuries caused by the petitioner are not on the vital part of the body of the victim, therefore, at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that petitioner had intention to kill the injured P.W. It would be seen at the trial stage after recording of evidence whether Section 324 PPC is attracted or not. Admittedly it is a case, of two contradictory versions according to the other version the complainant had injured the mother of the petitioner and to this effect a separate FIR has been registered against the complainant of this case and others. It has further been noticed that petitioner has been alleged to have caused fire-arm injury on the person of Mst. Nazi whereas according to medico legal report injuries caused to her were by a blunt weapon. The police had already declared the petitioner innocent, which has weaken the stand of the prosecution. Keeping in view all these factors, I am of the considered opinion that case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further enquiry entitling him to be released on bail. Accordingly I accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.