ALI SHER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ali Sher, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged hatchet attack on the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the alleged discrepancies between the prosecution's version of events and the medical evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding of a clear conflict between the specific allegation in the F.I.R. that the injury was caused by a hatchet blow and the medical opinion, which attributed the injury to a blunt weapon. The Court emphasized the established legal principle that the benefit of any doubt, even at the bail stage, must be extended to the accused, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, particularly as the petitioner had already joined the investigation.
- Does a conflict between the medical report and the F.I.R. regarding the weapon used entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Is the benefit of doubt available to an accused at the bail stage?
- When does a criminal case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Ali Sher through the instant petition has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.201, dated 1-5-2004 under section 337-A(ii) registered with Police Station Sadar, Arifwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 25-4-2004 at about 4-00 p.m. He has caused hatchet blow at the right side of the head of the complainant above the ear.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in with mala fide intention as the complainant owned an amount of Rs.9,000 to him and he had demanded the same from him and he in order to avoid the payment of the same has involved him falsely in the case; that the complainant in fact had suffered the injury within a stone lying on the ground and he had not at all caused him any such injury; that there is 5/6 days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that Medico-Legal Report of the complaint is clear in contradiction to the role assigned to him in the F.I.R.; that he has joined the investigation and the alleged recovery of the weapon of the offence in fact has been planted upon him; and that he is ready to join the police investigation again, if so required.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he has caused hatchet below at the head of the complainant over the ear; and that no mala fide on the part of the complainant has been shown and so at least it is not a case of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. As said above that according to the F.I.R., he has caused hatchet blow at the right side of the head above the ear of the complainant. It has been found from the Medico-Legal Report of the complainant that one injury was on his head.
7. The doctor has opined this injury to have been caused by blunt weapon. As is obvious from the above position that the complainant was very specific in his assertion that he has caused hatchet blow straight on the right side of his head above the ear. There is, thus clear conflict in the role assigned to him in the F.I.R. And the medical opinion.
8. It is needless to mention here that benefit of every doubt, even at the bail stage, is given to the accused as is the settled proposition in law. The case of the petitioner, thus is certainly opened to further inquiry into his guilt and so is covered under the subsection (2) of section 497, C Cr .P.0 .
9. The A.S.-I. Present has stated that the petitioner has joined the investigation and the recovery of crime weapon stood effected from him. He has conceded that he is not required for any further purpose of the investigation.
10. In these circumstances, I find that the case for extending the relief prayed for to him has been made out. The petition, therefore, is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already extended to him is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
11. He, however, is directed to join the police investigation again, if and when so needed.
12. It is also made here clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court in any manner.
' Interim pre-arrest .