GHULAM NABI vs The STATE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the order of the High Court refusing him post-arrest bail in a case involving offences under sections 148, 302, and 307 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The incident resulted in one death and injuries to multiple persons on both sides. The High Court had earlier granted bail to two co-accused on the ground that the complainant side's aggression and lack of explanation for numerous injuries on the accused side warranted further inquiry, but denied bail to the petitioner because he was attributed two hatchet blows falling under section 307. A subsequent bail petition on the additional grounds of old age and illness was also dismissed. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the circumstances, noting the unexplained injuries on the accused side and the prolonged incarceration exceeding two years. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail and accordingly accepted the appeal, laying down the principle that unexplained injuries on the accused party coupled with the statutory considerations regarding prolonged detention and medical condition justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when multiple injuries sustained by the accused party remain unexplained in the first information report?
- Does prolonged incarceration without a likelihood of an early trial constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether age and ailments such as cataract and rheumatic pains warrant the concession of bail under the statutory provisions?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The petitioner herein along with four others was accused in a case under sections 148, 302/307 read with 149, P. P. C. On the 29th December 1974 there took place an incident at Ahmad Pur, District Gujranwala in the course of which injuries were caused to Altaf Hussain and three others on the complainant's side. Altaf Hussain died later as a result of an hatchet injury on the head. The report of the incident was lodged on the following day by Abdul Aziz who had also received injuries. In the report the petitioner and his companions were accused for having attacked the deceased and two others as members of unlawful assembly.
2. Of the five accused, three namely the petitioner; his son lftikhar and Zulfiqar moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2130-B of 1975 in the High Court for grant of bail. A learned Single Judge by order dated 20-6-1975 refused bail to the petitioner but allowed bail to the other two accused on the ground that on the petitioner's side as many as 24 injuries were received he of which there was no mention in the F. I. R. And that therefore the plea that the complainant side was the aggressor or at any rate there was free fight between the two parties could not be rejected out of hand. The learned Judge was also influenced by the fact that the fatal injury to the deceased was attributed to Anwar Khan, co-accused, who had not applied for bail.
3. The reason which weighed with the learned Judge to refuse bail to the petitioner however, was that he had inflicted two hatchet blows on the head of Abdul Aziz informant and therefore, ex facie the offence alleged against him would fall under section 307, P. P. C. Which is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years.
4. About six months thereafter, the petitioner moved fresh Criminal Miscellaneous No. 700/B-76 for bail in which besides taking the pleas which weighed with the learned Judge in the High Court to allow appeal to Zu1fiqar and Iftikhar also pleaded his old age and illness, as additional grounds for the grant of bail. It appears that along with the petition medical certificate by the Jail Doctor was also produced. According to medical certificate the petitioner was more than 70 years of age and suffering from cataract in both the eyes and rheumatic pains in both the knees. The fresh application was heard by the same learned Judge who had earlier refused bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Judge was not impressed by the additional grounds urged for the grant of bail and dismissed the application with the observation that aged persons often suffer from cataract and rheumatic pains which is hardly a sufficient ground for grant of bail. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the above order of the High Court.
6. During the course of hearing of the petition, we decided to convert it into appeal and had also heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) in opposition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid great stress on the fact that o the petitioner's side as many as 24 injuries were caused and one of the four injuries to the petitioner was grievous about which there was no explana--petition whatever in the F. I. R. He also referred to the observation in the order of the High Court dated the 20th June 1975 wherein the learned Single Judge had observed that on the broad facts of the case the possibility that each accused was responsible for his individual act could not be excluded and that it was precisely for that reason that bail was earlier allowed to Zulfiqar and Iftikhar. Learned counsel therefore, argued the even according to the prosecution the petitioner was responsible for the two simple injuries to Abdul Aziz. It was also stressed that the petitioner has been in judicial lock-up for more than two years and there is no likelihood of early hearing of the case. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's case is covered by the second proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C. Because of the report by the Medical Officer.
8. Having given our careful consideration to the circumstances of the case, in our opinion it is a fit case in which the petitioner should have been granted bail. Accordingly, we accept the appeal, admit him to bail in the sum o Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE 1989 PLC 626
- NOOR MUHAMMAD and others vs THE STAT E 1985 P Cr. L J 1374