MALANG SAID vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused-petitioner, Malang Said, who was charged under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing firearm injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being attributed a specific role in the commission of the offence and the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim, specifically the loss of a testicle. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to bail because he was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a direct role of firing at the complainant, and the injuries were grievous in nature, potentially fatal. The Court further rejected the argument based on the principle of consistency, noting that the roles attributed to co-accused who had been granted bail were distinguishable from the petitioner's specific role. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency in bail matters does not apply where the role of the accused seeking bail is distinguishable from that of co-accused already released.
- Does the principle of consistency in bail matters apply when the role of the accused is distinguishable from that of co-accused who have been granted bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when a specific role of firing at the complainant is attributed to them in the F.I.R. and the injuries caused are grievous?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Having been involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,476, dated 25-7-2003 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt. Kohat, the accused-petitioner applied for his release on bail in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat but the same was dismissed vide order, dated 24- 10-2003. Thereafter, he moved the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat but his application was dismissed vide order, dated 14-11-2003. He has now moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. I have heard Messrs Muhammad Amin Khattak Lachi, the learned counsel representing the accused-petitioner, Shah Nawaz, the learned counsel representing the complainant and Ilyas Ahmad Qureshi for the State and perused the record.
3. In this case, Malang Said, the accused-petitioner, Ghulam Rasool, Murid Shah sons of Juma Shah and Juma Shah were charged for causing injuries on the complainant Mira Jan and a specific role was attributed to the petitioner that the complainant was fired at by him, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The medico-legal report shows that-there was an entry wound over the back (Dorsal) just at Anus about 1/2" in size. A fire-arm wound over the left scruple ribs about 1/2". He was admitted in Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar on 25-7-2003 and was operated upon the same day and his left testicle was removed due to the injuries sustained by him. He was, however, discharged from the Hospital on 4-8-2003. The injuries on the person of the complainant were found to be grievous. The victim was deprived of his left testicle A for all times to come, therefore, the provisions of sections 337/334, P.P.C. Would also be attracted.
4. Since the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of firing at the complainant and the said injuries sustained by him could cause his death, therefore, keeping in view the dictum laid down in Dildar and others v. The State 1998 SCM R 358, Riaz Shah v. Mubarik Shah 2000 PCr.LJ 1167 and Khaliq Dad v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 201, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that three other co-accused have been released on bail, therefore, due to law of consistency, the petitioner should also be released on bail, has no force. The roles attributed to other three co-accused were distinguishable. The accused- petitioner has been attributed specific role of firing at the complainant thus, the principle of consistency is not attracted in the case in hand.
6. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.