In a significant ruling in an attempted murder case, the Islamabad High Court has rejected the post-arrest bail application of the accused, observing that once a person presses the trigger and the shot hits the target, the intent of the accused becomes evident.
The decision was announced by Justice Khadim Hussain, who dismissed the bail plea filed by the accused in a case involving allegations of firing at the complainant’s wife and son, causing serious injuries. The court’s ruling underscores the principle that the act of intentionally firing a weapon at a person, particularly when the bullets strike and cause harm, strongly indicates criminal intent.
According to the case record, the accused allegedly opened fire on the complainant’s family members, resulting in multiple gunshot injuries. The complainant’s son reportedly sustained three bullet wounds during the incident. The court noted that the recovery of the pistol allegedly used in the crime during the investigation further strengthened the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.
While arguing for bail, the defense may have attempted to raise questions about the nature of intent or circumstances surrounding the incident. However, the court categorically observed that once the trigger is pulled and the shot finds its mark, the accused cannot later claim leniency on the basis of poor marksmanship or argue that the injuries were not fatal. Justice Khadim Hussain remarked that an accused cannot seek the concession of bail by portraying the act as less serious merely because the attack did not result in death.
The court emphasized that the seriousness of the allegations and the available evidence must be considered when deciding post-arrest bail applications. In this case, the presence of firearm injuries, the medical evidence, and the alleged recovery of the weapon were sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the offense at this preliminary stage.
Addressing another point, the court observed that immediately shifting the injured victims to the hospital is a natural and expected response in such situations. Therefore, a delay of a few hours in formally registering the case does not materially weaken the prosecution’s case. The judge clarified that in violent incidents, priority is often given to saving lives rather than immediately completing legal formalities, and such delay cannot automatically be interpreted in favor of the accused.
The court further remarked that once a firearm is discharged in the direction of another person, the trajectory and impact of the bullet may not always remain fully within the control of the attacker. Nonetheless, the deliberate act of aiming and firing at a person is sufficient to infer intention for the purpose of determining bail in an attempted murder charge.
According to the police record, the accused, identified as Fawad, also has four other criminal cases registered against him. While previous cases do not automatically establish guilt in the present matter, the court noted that such background is relevant when assessing whether the accused deserves the concession of bail.
Justice Khadim Hussain concluded that the material available on record at this stage was adequate to link the accused with the alleged offense. Given the gravity of the charge, the nature of injuries inflicted, and the evidence collected during investigation, the accused was not entitled to the relief of post-arrest bail.
However, the court clarified that these observations are tentative in nature and limited to the bail proceedings. The trial court, while deciding the case on merits, will not be influenced by these preliminary remarks and will independently assess the evidence presented during the trial.
