1984 P Cr (PLP)

Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology ref. Ch. Muhammad Tai for Petitioner. Rafique Mahmood, Addl. A.G. for the State. Date of institution: 9th August, 1983. This is a bail application under section 498 of the Cr. P. C., instituted on behalf of Qurban Hussain petitioner who is involved in a case under section 307/34, A. P. C. and under section 15 of the Islamic Penal Laws pct of 1974, registered at Police Station, Afzalpur. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 21st July, 1983, exchange hot words and abuses took place between the petitioner and Abid Hussain son of Muhammad Nazir complainant at Manda Bridge on the question of repairs of the transmitter. In the same evening, Haji Muhammad Alam, the step-brother of the complainant called Muhammad Salim, the father of the petitioner to his house and complained to him that his son had abused said Abid Hussain. On the next day, at about Noon time, tine petitioner and Suleman came to the compound of the house of Mushtaq P. W. a resident of Qazi Chak, armed with pistols and raised lalkara to Haji Muhammad Alam and Abid Hussain who were attending the marriage ceremony of the niece of the above-named owner of the house that they would not leave them alive today and simultaneously, resorted to firing on them with pistol, as a result of which, Muhammad Alam sustained injury on his head from the pistol-shot fired by the petitioner. Muhammad. Nawaz P. W. and the complainant snatched pistols from the petitioner and His father respectively, whereupon the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that grant of bail is a rule and its refusal an exception in all cases, except to a murder case and as such, the District Criminal Court, has erred in disallowing the concession of bail to the petitioner, especially when only simply injury has been sustained by the injured-person who has been released from the hospital after the said injury having healed up. In support of his above contention, he has referred to a case - reported as 1981 P Cr. L J

723. It was also. argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opinion of the doctor belies the allegation against the petitioner that he caused injury to the injured-person by firing from the pistol. In this connection, it is contended that according to the medical report, lacerated wound has been found on the person of the injured -person, whereas such a wound cannot be caused by the fire-arm shot and to support his above contention, he has referred to the Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence by N. J. Modi, wherein he has described four types of injuries, namely, contusion, lacerated wound, incised wound and the firearm wound.. This application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the petitioner being accused of having committed an offence under section 307, A. P. C. the bail cannot be granted to him as the aforesaid offence is punishable with imprisonment for life. It is also argued that the petitioner has made a murderous attack on the injured -person in a broad-day light at a marriage ceremony and there are as many as 5 eye-witnesses of the occurrence in this case and, therefore, reasonable grounds exist for believing the petitioner having committed the offence with which he is charged. After giving my due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties; I am of the view that at this stage, bail is not permissible to the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused fire-arm injury to the injured-person which offence entails the punishment of imprisonment for life and in which bail is prohibited under subsection (1) of section 497 of Cr. P. C. From the material available from the record, it cannot be said at this stage that 'no reasonable ground exists that petitioner is connected with the commission of the offence of attempt to murder. The ocular evidence consisting of testi monies of number of witnesses, prima facie, furnishes reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. I am unable to subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that bail, as a rule is allowed in all cases except in a case where the person is accused of an offence of murder as such a contention runs counter to the very provisions of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. which unambiguously and in no uncertain terms, impose a prohibition to the grant of bail to a person, accused of an offence punish able with death or imprisonment for life. The Superior Courts in Pakistan as well as in Azad Kashmir have held in number of cases that bail cannot be granted to .a person, accused of an offence which entails the punishment of either death or imprisonment for life unless his case is covered either by proviso (l) to the aforesaid subsection or by subsection (2) of section 497 of the Cr. P. C. In other words, the bait in such cases, is only permissible if the accused-person therein, happens to be below the age of 16 years, sick, old, infirm or a woman or there exist reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed such an offence. The present case is covered by the prohibitive clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. inasmuch as he is alleged to have committed an offence, which is punishable with the imprisonment for life and none of the exceptions enumerated above, is attracted in his case. In view of the seat of the injury found on the person of Haji Muhammad Alam and the weapon used in causing the same, the only intention behind the action of the petitioner of firing pistol shot on the injured-person that can be gathered at this stage, is that he did so with the intention to kill him. . I also do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation levelled against the petitioner of being responsible of causing fire-arm injury to the injured-person, stands contradicted by the Medical Report. It is, of course, correct that the Medical Officer in his report has described the injury in question as a lacerated wound caused by fire-arm but there is nothing in the Medical' Jurisprudence to support the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lacerated wound cannot be caused by fire-arm shot'. Even in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, it is written that injury produced by projectile discharge from fire-arm presents the Characteristics of lacerated wound and yet at another place, it has also been remarked that a bullet of low velocity causes laceration and contusion tin margin of the wound of enterance. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground for interfering in the order of the Court below as he has not exercised its discretion arbitrarily and capriciously in disallowing bail to the petitioner. Accord ingly this application is dismissed. M. A. K. Appeal dismissed.