Find a Lawyer

Criminal Bail Application No.514 of 1987, decided on 10th June, 1987.

---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/34--Baii, grant of--One of injuries, attributed to accused although on vital part yet only simple in nature while rest of injuries not on vital parts and it was still not clear whether or not they were grievous in nature--Bail granted in circumstances.

1987 P Cr. L J 966; 1987 P Cr. L J 1014; 1986 P Cr. L J 906 and 1987 P Cr. L J 697 ref.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicants.

Zaheer Qureshi for the State.

This bail application has been presented at the instance of Muhammad Mobin and Mammi alias Muhammad Ikram who are facing trial under section 307/34, PPC in the . Court of Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) in pursuance of Criminal Case No.177/87 registered at Korangi Police Station.

The prosecution case is that the applicants above named among armed with knives inflicted injuries on the person of Gulfam on 22-3-1987 at about 00-00 hours. The applicants arrested on 23-3-1987. According to the prosecution the injury No-1 was caused by Muhammad Mobin, the applicant No.2. As per medical report the injury No.l which was caused on the right side of the chest is simple whereas medical opinion regarding injuries Nos.2 and 3 is still awaited. The said two injuries were allegedly caused by applicant No.2 at forearm. Any how these two injuries were not caused at the vital part of the human body. The counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following decisions reported in 1987 P Cr. L J 966, 1987 P Cr. L J 1014 and 1986 P Cr. L J 906 wherein the bail was granted on the ground of injury caused was simple in nature. He also placed reliance on a decision reported in 1987 PCr.LJ 697 which is according to him, is identical to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In that case exchange of abuses took place between the parties and accused having flared up caused injuries into the abdomen of one Mohammad Ramzan. In that case it was held that there was an exchange of abuses between the injured and the father of the respondent and that row having suddenly flared up the accused caused an injury to Ramzan in his abdomen. Since it was admitted that the accused did not repeat the blow, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that it was a matter of further enquiry as to whether the offence a/s 307/34, PPC or a/s 308/34, PPC had been committed. The High Court on the application for cancellation of bail declined to interfere with the order of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, vehemently contended that since in the instant case there was no preconsent or premediation and there was a simple scuffle between the parties which resulted in question. Since injury No.1 was caused at the vital part but it was simple in nature, therefore, the applicant No.l is entitled to bail to so far as the applicant No.2 is concerned, the alleged injuries were caused at the left forearm which is not vital part and even if it is opined by the medical officer that they are grave nature still the applicant is entitled to be admitted to bail. Both the applicants, according to the counsel, have remained in custody for over a period of three months.

Mr. Zaheer Kureshi, learned counsel for the State, opposed the bail for the reason that Chhurri was recovered from applicant No.1 Muhammad Mobin and that the names of applicants appear in the F.I.R. and that the specific parts performed by them are also given therein. He submits that there had been a recovery of Chhurri from applicant No.l who caused the injury No.l on the vital part of the body. With regard to applicant No.2 he submits that P.Ws. Jehangir and Sattar have implicated him.

I have given earnest consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the opinion that in view of the medical certificate available now with regard to the nature of injury No.l being simple, I think it is a fit case wherein the applicant No.l may be enlarged on bail notwithstanding the fact that the said injury No.l was caused on the vital part of the body. So far as applicant No. 2 is concerned, I think he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail, as, firstly, in respect of the two injuries which were allegedly caused by him at the left forearm it is still not clear as to whether they are of grievous nature and secondly, they have not been inflict, at the vital part of the body of the injured. I would, therefore admit both the applicants to bail on their furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.

M.Y.H./M-179/K Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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