SHER MUHAMMAD and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(ii), 337(ii), and 337(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. dated 4-7-2002. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries, the age of one petitioner, and the delay in the trial proceedings. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the alleged injuries were of a simple nature, one petitioner was a minor, and significantly, the trial had not progressed despite the trial court's earlier directions for expeditious proceedings, with the petitioners having remained incarcerated for over a year. The key principle laid down is that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without meaningful progress in the trial, combined with the minor status of an accused and the nature of the injuries, constitutes sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail under the exceptions provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the minor status of an accused provide grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the lack of progress in a trial after a significant period of incarceration justify the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the injuries alleged in a criminal case are of a simple nature?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 276, dated 4-7-2002 under sections, 324/34, 337- A(i)/337-F(i)(ii)/ 337(ii)/337 (iv), P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The allegation against the petitioner Sher Muhammad is that he has caused 4 injuries on the person of Muhammad Sarwar and the nature of injuries is 337F(ii), whereas, the allegation against Ghulam Farid petitioner is that he has caused 3 injuries on the person of Muhammad Sarwar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sher Muhammad petitioner is aged about 16 years. Therefore, he is entitled to grant of bail. His case falls under the exception of section, 497, Cr.P.C. Further submits that both the petitioners were arrested on 14-7-2002 and since then they are behind the bars. Further submits that recovery has been effected and they are no more required for the purpose of investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that petitioners names are specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. With specific role and they have caused number of injuries on the person of Muhammad Sarwar. Further submits that challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court wherein charge has been framed on 6-1-2003 prays that petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel and also perused the record. The injuries alleged to have been caused by the petitioners are of simple nature. Petitioner Sher Ahmad is minor. Therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. His case falls under one of the exceptions of section 497, Cr.P.C. It has also been observed that the learned trial Court has directed the trial of the case to be conducted expeditiously but even then no progress has been made in the trial. The petitioners are behind the bars for almost more than 1 year. It is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. Petitioners are directed to be released on bail provided they submit bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.