Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1718/B of 1985/BWP, decided on 7th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 326‑‑Ball, grant of‑‑On basis of X‑Ray report, Medical Officer, declaring injury as grievous one and recording his note on medico‑legal report‑‑Mere fact that X‑Ray film was not attached with challan, held, could not ipso facto, establish that no grievous injury actually suffered by injured person‑‑Bail declined, in circumstances.

Shahadat Ali v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1 and Abdul Hay-uz- Zafar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2010 ref.

Qaisar Mahmud Shafi for Petitioner.

Jamil Pirzada for the State.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the grant of bail is, that no X‑ray report has been attached with the challan, and, therefore, it should be held, that the injury was not grievous. I am afraid the contention has no force.

2. I have examined the medico‑leg. I report. The injured was examined by the doctor on 21st of July, 1985 and a note has been given thereon by the doctor on 23rd of July, 1985, that the X‑ray report No. 660 has been perused, according to which the ulna bone of the injured has been found to be fractured. On the basis of the said report, the injury was declared to be grievous, The mainstay of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the injury is not grievous and that no X‑ray report has been attached. Be that as it may, I cannot ignore the note of the doctor to which presumption of regularity is attached. Prima‑facie, there are no reasonable grounds to believe, that the petitioner is not guilty of the commission of offence under section 326, P.P.C., which is punishable with life imprisonment. The learned counsel has cited judgments reported as Shahadat Ali v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 1 and Abdul Hay‑uz‑Zafar v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 2010. In the former case there was only one grievous injury on the knee, and it was held that since it was not on vital part of the body, and since the challan had been submitted in the Court of a Magistrate with section 30 Powers, therefore, that was a fit case for the grant of bail. With all respect, I take a different view because the forum of trial is not a test by which the punishment is to be determined. The punishment as provided by law is laid down in the penal provisions. One cannot foresee the consequences of the trial at the bail stage, by only taking into view the forum. The possibility cannot be ruled out, that the trial Court may consider to award maximum punishment, for which the trial Court can refer the case to the Court of competent jurisdiction. In the latter case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was laid down, that the grant of bail is a rule, and the refusal is its exception. This was a case of misappropriation of funds by a public servant, and hence on facts can be distinguished.

3. The challan in this case has been submitted. I would direct the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously, so that the trial is concluded within a period of three months. The trial Court shall send progress report to this Court. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.

S.G.D. Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.