P L D 2002 Karachi 320 (PLP)

Muhammad Irfan for the Complainant. Arshad Loadhi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing; 18th March, 2002. Applicant Naveed has been arrested for an offence punishable under section 324, P.P.C. The allegations against him as contained in the‑F.I.R. are that on 27‑4‑2000 at 10‑00 a. m. he caught hold of Faheemuddin and inflicted a dagger blow on the side of his chest with intention to kill him and then he ran away. Faheemuddin was immediately shifted to hospital. On receiving information of this occurrence S.‑I Zafar Iqbal reached the hospital and attempted to record the statement of Faheemuddin but the Medical Officer informed him that the latter was not capable of speaking, therefore, he recorded the statement of Muhammad Dawood the father of injured who by that time had reached the hospital on receiving telephonic information about the occurrence.

2. The applicant was arrested on 6‑5‑2000. He moved an application for bail whiLh was dismissed by this Court on 15‑12‑2000 with direction to the trial Court to examine the victim, Faheemuddin and Mst. Rehmat Bibi within two months of receipt of the said order, failing which the applicant may repeat the application for bail. The trial Court could hardly examine one of them namely Mst. Rehmat Bibi, besides complainant Muhammad Dawood the father of injured. The application for bail moved on behalf of applicant was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the act of accused causing an injury to the victim amounts to ' Ghundagardi' and release of such type of person on bail would endanger innocent persons as such the applicant being a desperate and dangerous person. was not entitled to bail within the meaning of 4th proviso of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

3. During the bail proceedings in this Court a report was called for from concerned Medical Officer about the present state of health of victim. It has been certified that all injuries of the chest have healed up, while breathing and speech of the patient was dependent on T. Tube of Throat and final certificate would be issued after removal of such tube. However, during the course of arguments learned advocate for complainant submitted that the victim is now in a position to speak and as such able to give evidence. He opposed the bail on the ground that since the victim is capable of giving evidence the bail plea may not be entertained at this stage.

4. This application for bail was moved on 17‑8‑2001, therefore, un amended provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. were applicable to applicant's case. By now, he has remained in custody for a period of about 21 months. Mr. Shoukat H. Zubedi learned counsel for applicant relying on PLD 1995.SC'49 (Zahid Hussain Shah v. The State) argued that the solitary injury even on vital part was not enough to withhold the statutory concession of bail to which applicant was otherwise entitled as he had remained in continuous detention for a period of more than one year and the delay in trial was not attributable to him. I agree with Mr. Zubedi. The principle laid down in these authorities supports the bail plea. There is no other case', against the applicant and even in the instant incident he inflicted only one blow and then fled away‑ He cannot, therefore, be treated as a dangerous and hardened criminal.

5. For the foregoing reasons the application is allowed and bail is granted to applicant in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety and PR Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. N.H.Q. /N‑91/K Bail granted.