MUHAMMAD ASGHAR alias NONA PEHLWAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 436 dated 9-6-2003 registered under sections 324/337-F(iii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was attributed a solitary firearm shot to a non-vital part of the body without repetition, raising a question of intent. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the offence under section 337-F(iii) did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1). The court laid down the principle that where an accused is attributed a single shot to a non-vital part without repetition, the question of intent to commit qatl-i-amd requires further inquiry, making it a fit case for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a solitary firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition bring the case under further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an offence under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does the question of intent to commit qatl-i-amd become a matter for trial rather than determination at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.436, dated 9-6-2003 unde sections 324/337-F(iii)/34, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Guj rat.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that: on 9-6-2003 at about 7-45 p.m. Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan armed with .30 bore pistol and Reehan with .222-rifle, in furtherance of their common intention have attempted the Qatl-i-Amd of complainant Abdul Qayyum.
Muhammad Asghar alias Nona Pehlwan had fired with .30 bore pistol at him hitting on his thigh.
Reehan had fired at him with .222 rifle hitting on his front side of the right shin. The motive behind the occurrence is previous enmity between them.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in; that he has been ascribed solitary fire shot to the injured/complainant; that he did not repeat the fire to him; that he is behind the bars since 21-6-2003; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has been ascribed specific role of causing fire-arm injury to the injured on his thigh; and that the crime weapon pistol has been recovered from him and so, he is connected with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of the available record.
6. The fact remains that he has ascribed solitary fire shot to the complainant/injured on his non- vital part of the body like thigh. He did not repeat fire on him. In these circumstances, it is yet to be seen that if he had any intention to kill him. And such question can only be determined at trial. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.. Requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
' The fact also remains that the offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. Is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
7. He is behind the bars and stated to be pre'ious non-convict, which fact has not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. His petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.