LIAQAT ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail for an accused person incarcerated for fourteen months in connection with a case involving Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involve the applicability of Section 324 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 where an injury is sustained on a non-vital part of the body, and whether delay in the conclusion of the trial warrants the grant of statutory bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 324 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is fully attracted once the accused fires a weapon, regardless of the part of the body struck, and further finding that the delay in the trial was attributable to adjournments sought by the defense rather than the prosecution. The court laid down the principle that pressing the trigger of a firearm brings Section 324 into operation, and an accused who contributes to trial delays cannot claim statutory benefit for tardy proceedings.
- Whether Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies when a gunshot injury is inflicted on a non-vital part of the body?
- Does a delay in the conclusion of a trial attributable to defense adjournments entitle the accused to bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' In order to reach at a just conclusion, I had directed the Investigating Officer to bring the judicial record so it may be seen that who is at fault about the delay in conclusion of the trial in the instant case. I have gone through the interim orders. At least on 3/4 dates of the hearing, witnesses including the injured P.W. Were present but the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that section 324, P.P.C. Is not applicable in this case, that petitioner is behind the bars for the last 14 months, that not a single witness has been examined, that injury was caused on the non-vital part of the body of injured P.W. And that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, petitioner was armed with gun, he fired a shot which hit on the thigh of injured P.W., who is also present in Court. Section 324, P.P.C.
Is fully applicable in this case. Once an accused person presses the trigger, section 324, P.P.C.
Comes into existence. As far as delay in conclusion of the trial is concerned, at least on 3/4 dates of hearing, witnesses including the injured P.W. Were present but the learned counsel got adjourned on one pretext or the other. Presently no case for interference is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial in this case within two months on the receipt of order of this Court.