ضمانت کی برطرفی-حملہ ، چوٹیں اور دھمکیاں - - طبی ثبوت - - جب کسی درخواست گزار کو طبی شواہد ، فوری ایف آئی آر اور عینی شاہدین کی گواہی کی حمایت سے ........

 PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 325

[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]

Present: Ch. Sultan Mahmood, J.

AMIR--Petitioner

versus

STATE etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 10529-B of 2025, decided on 13.1.2026.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

ایس ۔ 497-پاکستان پینل کوڈ ، 1860 (1860 کا ایکس ایل وی) ایس ۔ 302 ، 324 ، 337-A (i) 337-A (i) 337-L (2) 148 اور 149-

ضمانت کی برطرفی-حملہ ، چوٹیں اور دھمکیاں - - طبی ثبوت - - جب کسی درخواست گزار کو طبی شواہد ، فوری ایف آئی آر اور عینی شاہدین کی گواہی کی حمایت سے موت کا باعث بننے والے براہ راست عمل کے لیے نامزد کیا جاتا ہے ، تو ضمانت محض کراس ورژن کی بنیاد پر یا اس وجہ سے نہیں دی جا سکتی کہ شریک ملزم کو رہا کر دیا گیا تھا - ملزم نے متوفی کے سر پر گولی چلائی تھی ، جس کے نتیجے میں موت واقع ہوئی اور اشتعال انگیزی یا بدنیتی کے الزامات کے دعووں کے باوجود اسے جرم سے منسلک کرنے کے لیے کافی مواد موجود تھا ۔ اسی طرح ، فوری معاملے میں ، درخواست گزار پر الزام لگایا جاتا ہے کہ اس نے متوفی کے سر پر ڈنڈا سے براہ راست وار کیا ، جس سے شدید چوٹیں آئیں اور بالآخر موت واقع ہوئی ، جیسا کہ طبی شواہد اور عینی شاہدین کے بیانات سے تصدیق ہوتی ہے ۔ - حقیقت یہ ہے کہ شریک ملزم کو ضمانت دی گئی ہو سکتی ہے یا یہ کہ درخواست گزار بعض دفعات کے اطلاق کا مقابلہ کرتا ہے ، اس کے خلاف جرم کی سنگینی یا پہلی نظر میں مواد کو کم نہیں کرتا ہے ۔ - ضمانت کا جواز پیش کرنے کے لیے کوئی غیر معمولی حالات موجود نہیں ہیں - ضمانت دینے کا جواز پیش کرنے کے لیے کوئی غیر معمولی حالات موجود نہیں ہیں اور تفتیش اور مقدمے کی کارروائی کی سالمیت کو یقینی بنانے کے لیے درخواست گزار کی مسلسل حراست انصاف کے مفاد میں ضروری ہے ۔ 

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149--Bail dismissal of--Assaulted, causing injuries and threats--Medical evidence--When a petitioner is specifically nominated for a direct act causing death, supported by medical evidence, prompt FIR and eyewitness testimony, bail cannot be granted merely on basis of a cross-version or because co-accused were released--Accused had fired at head of deceased, resulting in death and sufficient material connected him to crime, despite claims of provocation or mala fide allegations--Similarly, in instant matter, petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a direct blow with a danda on head of deceased, causing serious injuries and eventual death, as corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts--Fact that co-accused may have been granted bail or that petitioner contests applicability of certain sections does not diminish gravity of offence or prima facie material against him--No exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail--No exceptional circumstances exist to justify grant of bail and petitioner’s continued detention is necessary in interest of justice, to ensure integrity of investigation and trial proceedings. [P. 327] A & B

Mr. Muhammad Usman Sharif Khosa, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Shahid Aleem, Additional Prosecutor General for State.

M/s. Muhammad Nawaz Khan Sadozai and Javed Ahmad Khan, Advocates for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 13.1.2026.

Order

Through this petition in the terms of Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 200/2025 dated 20.04.2025, registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-L(2), 109, 148, 149 PPC at Police Station Saddar Fazilpur, District Rajanpur.

2.       According to the FIR, on 20.04.2025 at around 5:00 p.m., the complainant was intercepted on his way home by the petitioner alongwith his co-accused, who allegedly assaulted him, causing injuries and threats and then fled away from the scene.

3.       After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is still premature to draw any final conclusion at this stage. In any case, in view of the facts and medical evidence, the principle of the eggshell skull rule is squarely attracted, making the petitioner liable for the resulting injuries and death, irrespective of any pre-existing condition of the deceased. Even if the petitioner resists the applicability of Section 322 P.P.C., it is too early at this stage to consider such objections. Determination of the applicability of this provision falls within the domain of the learned trial court while framing the charges and during the course of trial. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner is reported to have inflicted a direct blow on the head of the deceased, which, in light of the medical evidence, had a direct causal link to the injuries and eventual death. The investigation record clearly indicates the petitioner’s active participation in causing the specific injury.

4.       The medical record confirms that the deceased suffered serious injuries. While the eggshell head skull rule suggests that the severity of injuries may have been exacerbated by the victim’s pre-existing condition, this does not diminish the petitioner’s liability. The petitioner’s assault, armed with weapons, directly caused the injuries and posed a threat to life, as corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

5.       Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the manner in which it was committed and the injuries inflicted, it

cannot be held that the petitioner is entitled to bail at this stage. The argument that the injuries were aggravated due to the victim’s pre-existing vulnerability does not absolve the petitioner of criminal responsibility. This view is further supported by the Supreme Court in Rashid Ramzan vs. The State and others (2022 SCMR 2111), where it was held that when a petitioner is specifically nominated for a direct act causing death, supported by medical evidence, prompt FIR and eyewitness testimony, bail cannot be granted merely on the basis of a cross-version or because co-accused were released. In that case, the accused had fired at the head of the deceased, resulting in death and sufficient material connected him to the crime, despite claims of provocation or mala fide allegations. Similarly, in the instant matter, the petitioner is alleged to have inflicted a direct blow with a danda on the head of the deceased, causing serious injuries and eventual death, as corroborated by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts. The fact that co-accused may have been granted bail or that the petitioner contests applicability of certain sections does not diminish the gravity of the offence or the prima facie material against him. Therefore, applying the reasoning in Rashid Ramzan, it is clear that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify bail.

6.       In view of the foregoing, no exceptional circumstances exist to justify the grant of bail and the petitioner’s continued detention is necessary in the interest of justice, to ensure the integrity of the investigation and trial proceedings.

7.       For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is dismissed.

(A.A.K.)          Bail dismissed