Attempt to murder case supreme court upheld decision of high court grant of bail because of contradiction in fir and medical

**سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان میں (اپیل کا دائرہ اختیار)**

**موجودہ:**

مسٹر جسٹس جمال خان مندوخیل

مسٹر جسٹس محمد علی مظہر

**فوجداری پٹیشن نمبر 705 آف 2023**

** مورخہ 24.05.2023 کے حکم کے خلاف سندھ ہائی کورٹ حیدرآباد بنچ نے Cr.B.A.No.S-421/2023 میں جاری کیا**

**میر محمد ولد میر حسن**

…درخواست گزار

**بمقابلہ**

**ریاست بذریعہ پراسیکیوٹر جنرل سندھ**

… جواب دہندہ

**درخواست گزار کے لیے:**

جناب آفتاب عالم یاسر، اے ایس سی

درخواست گزار ذاتی طور پر (کراچی سے ویڈیو لنک کے ذریعے)

**ریاست کے لیے:**

جناب ظفر احمد خان، ایڈیشنل۔ پی جی سندھ

جناب علی ایم بجیر، ایس آئی

جناب یار محمد، اے ایس آئی

مسٹر ایم حسین، اے ایس آئی

**شکایت کنندہ کے لیے:**

شکایت کنندہ بذریعہ ذاتی (کراچی سے ویڈیو لنک کے ذریعے)

**سماعت کی تاریخ: 22.11.2023**

**ترتیب**

محمد علی مظہر، ج:

اپیل کرنے کی اجازت کے لیے اس فوجداری درخواست کے ذریعے، درخواست گزار ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری کا مطالبہ کرتا ہے اور 24.05.2023 کو سندھ ہائی کورٹ، حیدرآباد بینچ کے ذریعے Cr.B.A.No.S-421/2023 میں منظور کیے گئے حکم کو چیلنج کرتا ہے، جس نے انکار کر دیا تھا۔ اس کی ضمانت.

2. مختصراً، کیس کے حقائق یہ ہیں کہ درخواست گزار کو ایف آئی آر نمبر 48/2023 مورخہ 07.04.2023 میں نامزد کیا گیا تھا، جو پاکستان پینل کوڈ، 1860 ("PPC) کی دفعہ 324، 147، 148، 149، اور 504 کے تحت درج کی گئی تھی۔ ”) تھانہ چمبر، ضلع ٹنڈو اللہ یار میں۔ ایف آئی آر میں الزام لگایا گیا ہے کہ درخواست گزار نے شکایت کنندہ کے بھائی عمران کو آتشیں اسلحہ سے زخمی کیا اور وہ شکایت کنندہ فریق کے خلاف ہتھیاروں سے حملے میں ملوث تھا۔

3. درخواست گزار کے وکیل نے دعویٰ کیا کہ درخواست گزار کو سیاسی دشمنی کی وجہ سے جھوٹا پھنسایا گیا ہے۔ ایف آئی آر میں آتشیں اسلحے کی چوٹ کا الزام لگایا گیا ہے، لیکن میڈیکو لیگل رپورٹ بتاتی ہے کہ چوٹ تیز دھار ہتھیار سے لگی ہے۔ مزید برآں، ایک خصوصی میڈیکل بورڈ کی رپورٹ میں بتایا گیا ہے کہ زخم من گھڑت تھے۔

4. شکایت کنندہ اور ایڈیشنل پراسیکیوٹر جنرل سندھ نے ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے کا دفاع کرتے ہوئے کہا کہ درخواست گزار کو ایف آئی آر میں خاص طور پر اسلحے سے چوٹ پہنچانے کے لیے نامزد کیا گیا تھا، جس کی تائید گواہوں کے بیانات سے ہوتی ہے۔

5. دلائل سننے کے بعد، یہ نوٹ کیا گیا کہ ایف آئی آر اور ابتدائی میڈیکو لیگل رپورٹ میں تضادات ہیں، جس میں مؤخر الذکر کسی تیز چیز سے زخموں کی نشاندہی کرتا ہے اور اس کے بعد میڈیکل بورڈ نے زخموں کو من گھڑت پایا۔ آئی او نے یہ بھی اطلاع دی تھی کہ درخواست گزار قصوروار نہیں تھا، لیکن اسے نظر انداز کر دیا گیا۔

6. قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت ایسے معاملات میں دی جاتی ہے جہاں ایک معقول یقین ہو کہ درخواست گزار کو غلط طور پر پھنسایا جا رہا ہے۔ ناہمواریوں اور ممکنہ خراب نیتوں کے اشارے کے پیش نظر، کیس مزید انکوائری کا حکم دیتا ہے۔

7. لہذا، ہم 17.07.2023 کو اس عدالت کی طرف سے درخواست گزار کو دی گئی عبوری ضمانت قبل از گرفتاری کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔ درخواست کو اپیل میں تبدیل کر کے اجازت دی جاتی ہے۔ دی گئی ضمانت انہی شرائط پر نافذ رہتی ہے۔ یہ فیصلہ عارضی ہے اور مقدمے کے حتمی نتائج کو متاثر نہیں کرتا۔ اگر درخواست گزار ضمانت کا غلط استعمال کرتا ہے، تو شکایت کنندہ یا استغاثہ ٹرائل کورٹ میں اس کی منسوخی کی درخواست کر سکتا ہے۔

**جج**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Criminal Petition No.705 of 2023

Against the order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the

High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Bench, in

Cr.B.A.No.S-421/2023

Mir Muhammad s/o Mir Hassan

…Petitioner

Versus

The State through Prosecutor General Sindh

…Respondent

For the Petitioner:

Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC

Petitioner in-person

(via video link from Karachi)

For the State:

Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl. PG Sindh

Mr. Ali M. Bajeer, SI

Mr. Yar Muhammad, ASI.

Mr. M. Hussain, ASI

For the Complainant:

Complainant in-person

(via video link from Karachi)

Date of Hearing:

22.11.2023

ORDER

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. Through this criminal petition for leave to

appeal, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail and impugns the order

dated 24.05.2023 passed by High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Bench,

in Cr.B.A.No.S-421/2023, whereby his bail was declined.

2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case encapsulate that the

petitioner was nominated in FIR No. 48/2023 dated 07.04.2023,

lodged under Sections 324, 147, 148, 149, and 504 of the Pakistan

Penal Code, 1860 (“PPC”) at Police Station, Chambar, District Tando

Allah Yar. According to the narrative of the complainant, the petitioner

inflicted a firearm injury at the back region of the complainant’s

Crl.P.705/23

brother Imran while shooting at the complainant party with

murderous intent. It was further alleged that the petitioner, along with

his accomplices, were armed with lathis, hatchets, and pistols/guns,

also caused blows to the complainant party.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the case. The case is based on mala fide

intention because the petitioner was one of the contesting candidates

in the previous elections, and he has been made a scapegoat by

involving him in the instant case. It was further contended that,

according to the FIR, a firearm injury has been ascribed, but in the

medico-legal report it is stated to have been caused by a sharp edged

weapon. He further referred to the report of the Special Medical Board,

brought on the record vide Crl.M.A. No.1118/2023, in which,

according to the unanimous opinion of the Special Medical Board, the

injuries mentioned in the medico-legal report were found to be

fabricated.

4. The complainant, present via video link from Karachi, and the

learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh (“Addl. PG”), supported

the impugned order and contended that the petitioner has been

nominated in the FIR with the specific role of inflicting firearm injury

upon the PW Imran. Further, the statements of the PWs under Section

161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (“Cr.P.C.”) fully supported

the version of the complainant.

5. Heard the arguments. To start with, we confronted the learned Addl.

PG and the complainant with regard to the final medico-legal report,

but they could not account for the inconsistencies between the injuries

mentioned in the FIR and the initial medico-legal report. There is no

cavil that in the FIR, the petitioner has been assigned the specific role

of causing a firearm injury to the injured, however in the final medicolegal report, dated 20.4.2023, the alleged injuries are said to have

been caused by a “sharp cutting” object, and subsequently the injured

Imran was examined by the Special Medical Board, which, vide the

medico-legal report dated 03.08.2023, found the injuries to be

fabricated. Even the Investigation Officer (“IO”), Ali Muhammad Bajir,

informed us that he did not find the petitioner guilty and also

submitted a report under Section 168 Cr.P.C to the Station House

Crl.P.705/23

Officer (“SHO”), but the SHO ignored the report without any rhyme or

reason and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the

Trial Court. It is a well settled exposition of law that investigating

crimes is the responsibility of the police, and the IO performs a vital

and dominant role in this regard. It is not the duty of the Court to

monitor the investigation unless the investigation conducted by IO

appears to be mala fide, an abuse of power, or in violation of the

relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C., therefore, the jurisdictional extent of

intervention by the court in the course of the investigation is restricted

and limited.

6. While considering the petition for bail, the Court has to ascertain

the gravity and seriousness of the accusation. The precise role of the

accused must be determined and the Court must also gauge the

existing material in order to reach a tentative assessment on whether

the accused has been indicted with the object of injuring, demeaning

or disgracing his image and reputation. No doubt, anticipatory bail can

be granted in the exceptional circumstances. The jurisdiction to

consider the grounds of bail in pre-arrest and post-arrest are different.

The remedy of pre-arrest bail is meant to safeguard and shelter an

innocent person who has been dragged into a case with mala fide

intention or ulterior motives by the complainant or prosecution. While

entreating the exercise of discretion of the Court for the grant of

anticipatory bail, the accused is obligated to demonstrate that the case

against him is based on mala fide and must divulge reasonable

grounds to substantiate that he is not guilty of the offence and that

sufficient grounds are available to lead further inquiry. The concepts of

mala fide, ulterior motives or false implication are elementary and

indispensable constituents for enlarging the accused on pre-arrest bail

with the imminent apprehension of his arrest if the bail is declined.

The mere gravity of the allegation does not impede the grant of prearrest bail if reasonable grounds are otherwise available on a tentative

appraisal of the evidence. Based on the divergence and obvious

contradiction in the initial medico-legal report vis-à-vis the seat of

injury mentioned in the FIR, as well as the opinion subsequently

rendered by the Special Medical Board comprising six doctors, and the

statement of the IO made before us in the Court (which was not

controverted by the complainant or the learned Addl. PG), it appears

Crl.P.705/23

that the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry and there are

reasonable grounds to confirm his pre-arrest bail. So far as the

culpability of the petitioner in the commission of offence, if any, is

concerned, that would be better adjudged by the Trial Court after

production of pro and contra evidence. However, at this stage, on the

basis of a tentative assessment of the material placed before this

Court, the possibility of mala fide intention or ulterior motive on the

part of the complainant to implicate the petitioner in the case cannot

be ruled out and requires further inquiry.

7. In view of what has been discussed above, we are inclined to

confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner

by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023. The petition is converted

into an appeal and allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already

granted by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023 is hereby confirmed

on the same terms. Needless to say, the observations laid down in this

Order are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either

party. In case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the

complainant or the prosecution may move an application for

cancellation of bail in the Trial Court. Above are the reasons for our

short order of even date.

Judge

Judg

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.