SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN vs ZAHOOR AHMAD and 3 others
The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by the Sessions Judge, Lodhran, in a case registered under sections 337-F(vi), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents was justified given the allegations of vicarious liability, a proverbial Lalkara, and the failure of the injured party to appear before a Medical Board for re-examination. The Lahore High Court held that the Sessions Judge did not err in granting pre-arrest bail, noting that respondent No. 3 was empty-handed with only a proverbial Lalkara attributed to him, no specific injury was assigned to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and the injured complainant's avoidance of the Medical Board created a suspicious circumstance regarding his bona fides. The court laid down the principle that refusal of an injured party to submit to a medical re-examination constitutes a suspicious circumstance against their bona fides, supporting the grant of pre-arrest bail, and that mere proverbial Lalkaras and lack of specific injury attribution warrant further inquiry at trial regarding vicarious liability.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be cancelled when a petitioner fails to submit to re-examination by a Medical Board?
- Is a person who was empty-handed and attributed only with a proverbial Lalkara entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of specific injury attribution to certain accused persons justifies the continuation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Shahbaz Hussain, the petitioner has brought the instant petition seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail extended to respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide his order dated 30-4-2003, in Case F.I.R. No.51 dated 26-3-2003 under sections 337-F(vi)/ 337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Gellewal, District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that the petitioner has got registered the above mentioned case against respondents Nos.1 to 3 (Zahoor Ahmad , Farooq Ahmad and Ahmad Bakhsh) and others. He has alleged therein that he (complainant/petitioner) and his brother Muhammad Hussain on bicycle were returning to their house from Gellewal. They when reached near Dhari of Raja Muhammad Farooq and Abdul Hameed Rawani, Zahoor Ahmad, Farooq Ahmad sons of Ahmad Bakhsh armed with sotas, Ahmad Bakhsh empty-handed, Muhammad Aslam and Mukhtar with sotas emerged out from the wheat crop on the both sides of the road.
They stopped them. Ahmad Bakhsh raised Lalkara that Muhammad Hussain be taught lesson for submitting application against them for Wara Shikni. Thereupon Zahoor Ahmad, Farooq Ahmad and Mukhtar Ahmad inflicted sota blows to Muhammad Hussain hitting on his buttocks and thighs.
Muhammad Aslam inflicted him sota blow but he stopped the same with his left hand and the same landed on the back side of his hand, who fell down on the road with his head downwards and in the same condition all the accused inflicted him sota blows. On his noise, Muhammad Sultan and Muhammad Zaffar were attracted to the spot and they rescued him (Muhammad Hussain).
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Muhammad Hussain had made application for Wara Shikni against the accused. They bore grudge against him over the same and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly they had injured him.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 had applied for pre-arrest bail to the learned Sessions Court, Lodhran.
Similarly, their co-accused Mukhtar Ahmad moved application for post-arrest bail in the case. Both these applications were allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide his order dated 30- 4-2003.
5. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the same has come to this Court with this petition.
6. It has been contended on his behalf that respondents Nos.1 to 3 did not deserve extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail as on the Lalkara of respondent No.3 Ahmad Bakhsh, the remaining two respondents Zahoor Ahmad (respondent No.1) and Farooq Ahmad (respondent No.2) and their co- accused Mukhtar Ahmad had caused sota blows to injured Muhammad Hussain on his buttocks and the thighs; that they all thereafter, had also given him sota blows; that Ahmad Bakhsh (respondent No.3) is vicariously liable for causing injuries to him; and that the reasons employed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lodhran in granting them such bail were not cogent.
7. I have carefully considered his submissions with the help of copies of record annexed to the petition. .
8. As regard respondent No.3, Ahmad Balchsh, he admittedly was empty-handed at the time of alleged incident. Mere proverbial Lalkara has been ascribed to him in the commission of the crime alleged. So the question that as to whether he is vicariously liable for the injuries of the injured the same would be seen at the time of trial.
9. As regards respondents Nos. 1 and 2, no specific injury to the injured has been ascribed to them.
The injury declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqqilah punishable under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. Is attributed to their co-accused Muhammad Aslam.
10. One of the reasons advanced by the learned Sessions Judge in granting them the relief prayed for by them was that injured Muhammad Hussain had avoided to get himself re-examined by the Medical Board. This has not been denied by the side of the petitioner that Muhammad Hussain has not offered himself for re-examination by the Medical Board. This was suspicious circumstance qua his bona fide in the matter.
11. In such situation, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge has not erred in extending them the relief for by them (respondents Nos.1 to 3).
12. So, I have not been persuaded to cancel the pre-arrest bail already granted to them. The petition, therefore, is without any merit and the same is dismissed in limine.