Ibtehaj Zahid Rana Vs The State etc.

Form No.HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Misc. No. 355/B/2026

Ibtehaj Zahid Rana Vs The State and another S.No. of Order/ Date of order/ Order with the signature of the Judge and that of the parties or counsel, where Proceeding proceeding necessary

24.02.2026 Mr. Shahid Azeem, Advocate, with the Petitioner. Mr. Abdul Samad, Additional Prosecutor General, with Zafar/ASI.

Mr. Muhammad Qasim, Advocate, for the Complainant.

Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J. – Through this application, the Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.2046/2025 dated 26.10.2025 registered at Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura, for offences under sections 324, 337-F(iii) & 34 PPC.

2.According to the FIR, the prosecution case is that on 23.10.2025 at about 12:30 p.m., the Complainant was returning home after getting his cow vaccinated when accused Zahid and two unknown persons intercepted him on the way, abused and slapped him, and threatened to kill him. It is alleged that the Complainant managed to free himself and reach his Haveli. The Petitioner, armed with a pistol, followed him there, abused him, asked why he had abused his father, and then opened fire. One shot allegedly struck the Complainant on his left thigh, while other shots hit the trees within the Haveli. On hearing the firing, several persons from the neighbourhood arrived there, whereupon the accused fled while extending threats. The Complainant’s brother then made a call on ‘15’ (the emergency helpline), upon which the local police reached the spot, and the Complainant was shifted to THQ Hospital, Sharaqpur.

3.Mr. Shahid Azeem, Advocate, contends that the Petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. He submits that there is an unexplained delay of three days in the registration of the FIR, which suggests consultation and deliberation. He further submits that there is a material inconsistency between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Although the Petitioner is alleged to have been armed with a pistol and to have fired

at the Complainant, and two 9 mm crime empties are stated to have been recovered from the spot, the size of the entry and exit wounds recorded in the Complainant’s MLC is, according to counsel, incompatible with a 9 mm weapon. On that basis, he argues that the prosecution version is doubtful and that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of such doubt even at the bail stage. He prays that the Petitioner be admitted to pre-arrest bail.

4.Mr. Abdul Samad, Additional Prosecutor General, opposes this application. He submits that the occurrence was reported to the police without delay, the Complainant was medically examined on the same day, and the Petitioner has been specifically nominated in the FIR. He further submits that the ocular account is supported by the medical evidence and the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. According to him, the plea that the injury could not have been caused by a 9 mm weapon is misconceived and cannot be accepted at this stage. He argues that no case of mala fide, ulterior motive, or abuse of the process of law has been made out. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, and this application merits dismissal.

5.Arguments heard. Record perused.

6.The Petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific allegation that he shot the Complainant with a pistol on his left thigh. The Complainant was examined at THQ Hospital, Sharaqpur, District Sheikhupura, on 23.10.2025, the same day on which the occurrence took place. The Medical Officer observed the following injuries on his body:

Injury No.1: A penetrating wound of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the anterolateral aspect of the left thigh, about 12 cm from the knee joint (DNP) (Entry wound).

Injury No.2: A penetrating wound of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the posterior aspect of the left thigh about 10 cm from the knee joint (DNP) (Exit wound).

7.The Medical Officer referred the Complainant to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, for further management. On 11.11.2025, he rendered his final opinion on the basis of the operation notes received from there. The relevant findings were as follows:

Injury No.1: A 1 x 1 cm lacerated wound with a collar of abrasion and inverted margins on the anterolateral aspect of the left thigh about 20 cm from the left greater trochanter and 20 cm superolateral to the left patella.

Injury No.2: A 1 x 1 cm lacerated wound on the posterior aspect of the left thigh, with everted margins, 20 cm from the head of the left fibula and 30 cm from the greater trochanter of the femur. The distal neuromuscular bundle was found intact. Accordingly, Injuries No. 1 and 2 were declared Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah falling within the ambit of section 337-F(iii) PPC.

8.The occurrence is alleged to have taken place in broad daylight. The Petitioner was previously known to the Complainant as well as to Zohaib and Waheed, whose statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this stage, the identity of the assailant cannot be said to be doubtful. The weapon of offence has not yet been recovered. The prosecution states that the Petitioner’s arrest is required for that purpose.

9.A perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 shows that there is some variation in the wound dimensions recorded in the Complainant’s initial Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) and those mentioned in the final medical opinion. It is significant that the two descriptions were recorded on different dates, in different medical settings, and for different purposes: the first at the initial medico-legal examination soon after the occurrence, and the second later on the basis of hospital operation notes. Moreover, a wound may appear differently after surgical intervention, cleaning, exploration, or further clinical observation. In the circumstances, the aforementioned difference cannot presently be treated as a fundamental contradiction going to the root of the prosecution case. Its precise evidentiary effect will be determined by the trial court after the medical witnesses are examined and the relevant record is produced.

10.The Medical Officer has classified the injury attributed to the Petitioner as Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Mutalahimah, which falls within the ambit of section 337-F(iii) PPC. The said classification, however, does not determine whether the act alleged also attracts section 324 PPC. At times, a distinction is drawn between “vital” and “non-vital” parts of the body in examining the applicability of section 324 PPC. While that circumstance may be relevant, it is not decisive. The

correct test is whether the act alleged was done with the intention or knowledge requisite for an attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd. That is to be inferred from the overall circumstances, including the weapon used, the manner of its use, the number of shots, the distance and direction of firing, where ascertainable, the part of the body aimed at, and any antecedent threats or other attending factors. In the present case, the allegation is that the Petitioner followed the Complainant into his Haveli, abused him, questioned him, and then opened fire. One shot is stated to have hit the Complainant while further shots struck trees within the Haveli. In these circumstances, the occurrence cannot presently be treated as a chance encounter or an accidental discharge. Therefore, section 324 PPC cannot be excluded merely because the injury was caused on the thigh.

11.Mr. Azeem contends that the FIR was registered on 26.10.2025, with an unexplained delay of three days, which suggests consultation and deliberation. The record, however, shows that the Complainant’s brother immediately made a call on ‘15’, and the police reached the spot. The Complainant was taken to THQ Hospital, Sharaqpur, which referred him to Mayo Hospital, Lahore, for surgery. Thus, the incident and the resulting injury were promptly brought to the notice of the police. In these circumstances, the delayed registration of the formal FIR does not, at this stage, materially undermine the prosecution version or carry the significance that the learned counsel seeks to assign to it.

12.Before adverting to Mr. Azeem’s submission regarding the dimensions of the injuries, it is necessary to consider the medico- legal significance of such measurements. The function of the Medical Officer in a medico-legal examination is ordinarily to identify the nature of the injury and the kind of causative force, such as blunt force, sharp-edged weapon, or firearm. Where classical features exist, he may also comment tentatively on matters such as range and direction of fire. In cases of firearm injury, it is not his function to identify which particular weapon caused it, or to determine the calibre of a bullet merely from the dimensions of an entry or exit wound.

Those questions fall within the specialized domain of the forensic and ballistic expert.

13.According to Modi: A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (27th ed., pp. 717–724), injuries produced by projectiles discharged from firearms may exhibit the characteristics of lacerated wounds, though their appearance varies depending on several factors, including the nature of the projectile, the velocity at the moment of impact, the distance between the firearm and the body at the time of discharge, the angle of impact, and the particular part of the body struck. The size of the entrance wound caused by a bullet does not provide a direct measure of the bullet’s calibre, because the perforation is produced while the skin is under tension. After the bullet passes through, the skin tends to recoil towards its original position, and the wound margins may contract, particularly when the shot is fired from a short range.

14.Modi further explains that the characteristics and effects of firearm injuries depend largely on the size, shape, and velocity of the bullet. Larger and round bullets may cause more extensive damage, including laceration of tissues and comminuted fractures of bones. High-velocity rifle bullets typically produce clean, punched- out entry wounds, often perforate the body, and may damage bones even without direct impact because of the transfer of kinetic energy and the formation of a temporary cavity. In contrast, low-velocity bullets usually affect only the tissues lying in their direct track, may produce contused or lacerated wound margins, are more readily deflected or deformed on striking hard objects, and may lodge within the body. A bullet grazing a bone may produce a gutter fracture with or without fracturing it further and may alter the bullet’s direction.

15.That said, the measurement of an entry or exit defect is not without utility, though its purpose is documentary and contextual rather than identificatory. Such measurement is useful for documentation and for comparing injuries over time, for instance between the initial medico-legal certificate and subsequent medical opinions. It also helps correlate the wound with the projectile track, the anatomical site involved, and any radiological findings such as

retained fragments or fracture patterns. It may, when read with other medical and forensic features, offer limited assistance in understanding how the injury was caused. For example, a very large or irregular defect may, in an appropriate case, suggest an exit wound or a deforming, yawing, or fragmenting projectile, though even then the inference depends on the observable features of the wound. The significance of wound size can only be properly assessed alongside other indicia, such as soot or blackening, burning, tattooing or stippling, muzzle imprint, wad effects where relevant, marginal abrasion, and the overall morphology of the wound. These features permit a more informed opinion as to the range of fire and, in some cases, the probable direction of the projectile.

16.In cases of murder or hurt involving firearm injuries, the medical findings are ordinarily assessed in conjunction with the investigative and forensic material, particularly ballistic evidence. Where crime empties are available, and especially where the weapon of offence is also recovered, the accepted forensic method is to compare the class characteristics and, where possible, the individual characteristics of the bullets and cartridge cases, usually by test-firing the suspected weapon and comparing the test specimens with the material recovered from the scene to determine whether they were discharged from the same firearm. Even where the firearm is not recovered, the empties and any projectile or fragments secured during the investigation may still disclose class characteristics and other comparative features. In this context, the medical description of a firearm injury has limited evidentiary value. Standing alone, the size or appearance of a wound does not furnish a reliable basis for identifying or excluding a particular firearm or calibre.

17.At the bail stage, the material is examined tentatively on the totality of the available record, including the ocular account, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the forensic linkage, rather than by wound size alone. It may nevertheless be observed that, in a given case, the overall pattern of injuries may be inconsistent with the class of weapon attributed in the ocular account. Different classes of firearms ordinarily produce materially different injury patterns.

For example, a .12 bore shotgun may produce pellet injuries, spread, or multiple entry defects depending on the range, whereas a rifle such as a Kalashnikov typically produces a single projectile track with distinct entry and exit characteristics. If the medico-legal material clearly reflects an injury pattern more consistent with a rifle than with a shotgun, the court may treat such inconsistency as a significant contradiction requiring explanation.

18.Two authorities directly relevant to this discussion may now be noticed. In Awal Khan and others v. The State and another (2017 SCMR 538), the prosecution alleged that nine accused, all armed with Kalashnikovs, had fired at the complainant party. Crime empties of different bores were collected from the spot, but no crime weapon was recovered from any of the accused. The medical evidence and the site recoveries pointed to a different pattern of occurrence. The deceased had sustained one firearm entry wound measuring 1/4” x 1/4” on the right lumbar back and an exit wound in the mid-abdomen measuring 1” x 1”. One of the injured persons had two small injuries measuring 1/6” x 1/6” on the back of the right knee, while the second injured person had multiple firearm entry wounds on the lower abdomen and upper thigh in an area of about 12” x 12”. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account. It observed that, if nine persons armed with Kalashnikovs had fired in the manner alleged, the nature, number, and size of the injuries would have been different, and that the recovery of two .12 bore empties further strengthened the view that the injured had sustained shotgun pellet injuries and not Kalashnikov bullet injuries. The case was, therefore, treated as one requiring further inquiry.

19.Similarly, in Ali Raza v. The State and others (2022 SCMR 1245), the allegation was that the accused, armed with a rifle, had fired a shot which hit the right wrist of the injured witness. The Medical Officer recorded the injury as measuring 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. The Supreme Court regarded that aspect as relevant and, in the facts of that case, observed that the injury dimensions suggested a pellet injury rather than the rifle shot attributed to the accused. That

aspect, however, was not considered in isolation. The Court also took into account the delay of more than nine hours in the registration of the FIR, the fact that only a single shot was fired at a non-vital part of the body, the non-repetition of the fire despite opportunity, the non- availability of the weapon, and the accused’s prolonged incarceration. On the cumulative effect of those factors, the case was held to fall within the ambit of further inquiry, and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail.

20.These authorities do not lay down that the size of a wound, taken in isolation, conclusively identifies or excludes a particular firearm or calibre. They show only that the dimensions, number, and overall pattern of firearm injuries may, in an appropriate case, assume significance in bail proceedings where they materially contradict the ocular account or the class of weapon attributed to the accused. The present case stands on a different footing. Here, there is no such pronounced conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The allegation is of a pistol shot causing a single firearm injury to the Complainant’s thigh. The MLC records a corresponding entry and exit wound, and two 9 mm crime empties are stated to have been secured from the spot. The contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner rests essentially on the dimensions of the wounds alone. On the material presently available, that circumstance does not disclose the kind of medico-legal inconsistency that weighed with the Supreme Court in the above cases.

21.Mr. Azeem relies on the following passage from Vincent J. M. DiMaio, Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques (3rd ed.), to contend that the wound dimensions recorded in the Complainant’s MLC are inconsistent with the alleged use of a pistol and the recovery of 9 mm empties:

“... the size of an entrance hole in bone cannot be used to determine the specific caliber of the bullet that perforated the bone though it can be used to eliminate bullet calibers. Thus, a bullet hole 7.65 mm in diameter would preclude it having been caused by a 9 mm (.38 caliber) weapon. Bone does have some elasticity, however, so that a 9 mm bullet may produce an 8.5 mm defect.”

22.The above passage does not advance Mr. Azeem’s case. It discusses the size of an entrance defect in bone, whereas the present case concerns a soft-tissue injury to the thigh. No bony defect is noted in the Complainant’s MLC. In any event, the passage must be read in its own context. It does not suggest that wound dimensions, taken alone, furnish a safe basis for identifying or excluding a particular firearm or calibre.

23.It is well settled that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief. In Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 SC 427), the Supreme Court held that it is not to be granted as a matter of course. Its object is to protect a person from abuse of the process of law, arbitrary arrest, or harassment. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied that the accusation is patently groundless, or that the proposed arrest is intended for an ulterior purpose and would serve no legitimate investigative object, such relief is ordinarily not warranted. No such case has been made out here. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

24.The observations made in this order shall not prejudice either party at the trial.

(Tariq Saleem Sheikh) Judge Ahsan

Approved for reporting

Judge