BAIL-RULLING ON S.324 PPC
PLD 2008 Karachi 170 Rehmatullah
& another V/S The State
S.302/324/147/148/149/114/504/337-H(ii)/337-A(i)/337-F(i)
PPC. Both the accused were nominated in the FIR with clear roles attributed to
them by the complainant. Accused had come armed with pistols along with other
accused persons after the first incident in furtherance of their common object
and S.149 PPC was very much applicable in the case. Delay of few hours in
lodging the FIR had been clearly explained by the complainant. Accused did not
join the investigation after registration of the case and they had been shown
as absconders in the challan. INTERIM BAIL RECALLED.
PLD 2008 Karachi 170 Rehmatullah
& another V/S The State
S.302/324/147/148/149/114/504/337-H(ii)/337-A(i)/337-F(i)
PPC. Both the accused were nominated in the FIR with clear roles attributed to
them by the complainant. Accused had come armed with pistols along with other
accused persons after the first incident in furtherance of their common object
and S.149 PPC was very much applicable in the case. Delay of few hours in
lodging the FIR had been clearly explained by the complainant. Accused did not
join the investigation after registration of the case and they had been shown
as absconders in the challan. INTERIM BAIL RECALLED.
1993 PCrLJ 604. Muhammad Zaman &
another V/S The State (Lahore).
S.324/337-F(vi)/34 PPC. Accused
during investigation were found to be innocent and having no arms at the
relevant time. Offence U/S 34 PPC in the circumstances had also been deleted.
BBA GRANTED
1994 PCrLJ 1454. Habib & Others
V/S The State (Lahore).
S.324/34 PPC. Pre-arrest bail.
Neither crime empty recovered from the spot nor any person injured. According
to complainant, accused was not present on the spot. BBA CONFIRMED
1998 PCrLJ 1438. Katbar &
another V/S The State (Karachi).
S.324/34 PPC. Delay in lodging FIR
fully explained. Mere delay is no ground for bail before arrest. Injuries
caused by accused to victim though were simple but caused by a fire-arm and
allegation against accused was that they fired more shots at victim which
missed the target. Such attempt appeared to be an attempt to cause murder of
victim. No allegation of malafides against police alleged and accused failed to
show their innocence. By granting pre-arrest bail to accused would amount
disallowing police from interrogating them and would stifle the investigations.
BBA DISMISSED.
2000 MLD 1146. Muhammad Ali &
others V/S Ahmad Baksh & Others (Lahore).
S.324/337/452/34 PPC. Application
for pre-arrest bail filed by accused was dismissed for non-prosecution as on
the date fixed by court granting him ad interim bail, he did not turn up in the
court. Accused had asserted that on the date he could not appear in court due
to his illness. Nothing was on record to prove that accused had requested for
adjournment of case and no justification was given for absence of accused on the
date fixed by court. Pre-arrest bail was granted by court till a particular
date and it was duty of accused to appear in person and that of sureties to
comply with their undertaking to produce the accused in court. Trial court had
rightly dismissed application of pre-arrest bail for non-appearance of accused
in absence of any proof of alleged illness of accused. APPLICATION DISMISSED
2001 PCrLJ 1291. Muhammad Ramzan V/S
The State (Karachi.
S.324/337-H(2)/147/148/149 PPC. FIR
had been belated by fifteen days. Role attributed to accused in the occurrence
was to the extent of ineffective firing only. Parties were entangled in a civil
dispute. Involvement of accused in the case was due to malafide and ulterior
reasons. B.B.A. CONFIRMED
2002 PCrLJ 81. Adnan Nabi V/S The
State (Lahore)
S.324 PPC. Pre-arrest bail,
confirmation of. Prima consideration. Complainant had alleged that the accused
fired at him which missed and hit the nearby wall, but no mark of fire was on
the wall and no empty was recovered from the spot. Accused had joined the
investigation not only after the grant of pre-arrest bail, but earlier as well.
Delay of about 22 hours in reporting the matter to the police was not
satisfactorily explained. No injury having been caused on the person of the
complainant and no empty having been found from the scene of occurrence, the
recovery of pistol would hardly be relevant. Prima consideration for grant of
pre-arrest bail would be the unjustified arrest. If the pre-arrest bail was not
granted to the accused merely on the technical ground, it would serve no
purpose as the accused had already joined the investigation. In case of the
accused Police officer instead of applying his mind, had been acting
blind-folded upon the dictates of the complainant which had shown the mala
fides on the part of the police. BBA CONFIRMED
2003 PCrLJ 135 Allahdino and 6
others V/S The State (Karachi ).
S. 498 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.
324/337-F ( I ) (ii) / 148/149 Pre-arrest bail. Two F.I.Rs. had been registered
but the accused and the complainant party in both of them had not accepted
their presence and receipt of injuries accused could not take any benefit from
their own F.I.R. when they had not admitted that there was a counter, case,
Evidence of the injured witnesses including the complainant was corroborated by
medical evidence,Re-investingation report could not be considered as a solid
proof of innocence of accused, Accused were nominated in the F.I.R.with
specific role of causing injuries, Both the parties had not disclosed about
inflicting injuries to the other side in both the F.I.R.s and had suppressed
the happening of incident in both cases No.ulterior motive had been shown for
false implication of accused Pre-arrest bail was refused to accused in
circumstances.
2004 MLD 1473. Manzoor Ahmed V/S The
State (Lahore)
S.324/427/148/149 PPC. Accused
earlier obtained ad interim pre-arrest bail from trial court, but accused
neither furnished bail bond nor did he appear in that court on relevant date as
a result of which his bail application was dismissed. Accused, thereafter, had
filed present application for grant of bail. Very serious allegations were
leveled against accused and recovery of fire-arm was yet to be effected from
him. Accused had successfully managed to clued the process of law for more than
five months. Case of accused did not present any special feature so as to
entitle him to extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. BAIL REFUSED.
2002 PCrLJ 525. Muhammad Javed &
13 Others V/S The State (Lahore)
S.324/337-H(ii)/1449/149 PPC.
Accused persons had joined the investigation and during the investigation
nothing had been recovered from them. No coercive measures should be adopted
for effecting the recovery and the police could not be allowed to adopt third degree
methods for creating evidence. Lalkara had been attributed to one who was not
the petitioner/accused before the court. Medical report had clearly shown that
there was no intention to cause death of any person. Very large number of
persons had been involved in the case and the only allegation against the
accused was that after the occurrence they fired in the air. Arrest of the
accused, in circumstances, would be unjustified. AD INTERIM BAIL CONFIRMED.
2006 SCMR 407.Ashir Wasim Babar V/S
The State (SC.FB)
S.324/337-A(ii)/337-L(2) PPC.
Contesting of election openly for the office of Nasim by the accused after
having been charged U/S 324/337-A(ii)/337-L(2) itself was an evidence that the
authorities including the Incharge of the police station concerned and the
Presiding Officer etc, had not caused his arrest, knowing well about his
involvement in the offence. Accused on account of his influence seemed to have
attempted to circumvent the process of law, admittedly for no other purpose but
with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. FIR and medical evidence had
revealed that the accused had inflicted injuries with the "Butt" of
the pistol on the vital part i.e. head of complainant, which showed that the
case had been registered against the accused without any ulterior motive.
Happening of the incident was not denied by the accused and his plea that he
had been attacked by the complainant party was not substantiated by him through
any independent source at this stage. Complainant who had charged the accused
for the offences including an attempt of murder, had suffered at his hands and
no harm, therefore, would be caused if the accused was arrested. Investigating
Agency had yet to recover the crime weapon from the accused which was not
possible without his arrest. BBA REFUSED.
2008 YLR 22. Muhammad Tariq &
another V/S The State (Lahore)
S.324/337-F(i)/354/148/149 PPC. Both
the parties were involved in criminal and civil litigation and claim of
complainant was that accused party had come to the spot and opened firing on
them. During the incident, injured person received fire-arm injury on his left
leg which was attributed to co-accused, which was borne out from the
medico-legal report. Said co-accused had failed to show any mala fide on the
part of the complainant or the police for falsely attributing said injury to
him. Prima facie offence under S.324 PPC was made out in the case which fell
within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497. BBA OF CO-ACCUSED DISMISSED.
2008 PCrLJ 1347. Dr. Riaz Ahmed V/S
The State (Karachi)
S.332/337-F(iv)/353/186 PPC.
Counter-versions were given by the complainant, accused and the daily
newspapers. There had been disturbance in the university in which accused and
security agency were involved and some unpleasant incidents had taken place
between accused and the security agency including the complainant. Principles
of bail before arrest and after arrest were different. Accused had proved the
ingredients of bail before arrest. Was yet to be determined at the trial as to
which party was aggressor and which party was aggressed against. Contentions
relating to those questions could be gone into and decided by the trial court
after elaborate evaluation of the evidence recorded by it. BBA CONFIRMED.
1998 PCrLJ 1360. Abdul Razzaq &
4 Oth
No comments:
Post a Comment