Ghulam Hussain And 2 Other vs The State
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioners seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 462/2004 registered under sections 336, 337-L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thekriwala. The core legal question involves determining whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when injuries are categorized as Shajah Khafifah and the applicability of section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is debatable, and whether the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment over a minor dispute regarding milk payment without pre-planning. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry, noting the unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of pre-planning or enmity, thereby confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where the applicability of a penal provision is questionable and the incident occurs suddenly without pre-planning, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the applicability of section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is yet to be determined?
- Does an incident occurring at the spur of the moment over a minor dispute bring the case within the scope of further inquiry?
- Whether unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and absence of pre-planning support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
NASIM SABIR, J.- Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought for the pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 462/2004, dated 5.7.2004 under sections 336/337-L(2), 34 PPC registered with Police Station Thekriwala.
2. The allegation against the petitioner Ghulam Hussain is that while he was armed with some iron article/substance whereas petitioner No. 2 armed with repeater gun whereas and petitioner No. 3 was empty- handed, as per contents of FIR, Ghulam Hussain inflicted injury on the right cheek of the injured Ashiq Hussain whereas Akbar Ali gave fist blow to the injured at the lower lip of the injured and Asghar Ali gave a butt blow to the injured. The motive behind the occurrence is that there was dispute regarding the payment on account of selling of milk to the injured person.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Medico-legal report all the three injuries are Shajah Khafifah whereas section 336, PPC relating to Ihtlafe-Salahyat Uzv is not attracted in this case. Further submits that section 34, PPC is also not attracted according to FIR the incident took place at the spur of a moment and without consultation. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies on PLJ 1999 Cr.C. Lahore 1504 and 2002 P.Cr.L Report 705. To converse the point that case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry and bail before arrest can be granted in such like cases.
4. Conversely learned State counsel assisted by. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners are not relevant in this bail before arrest. The only element essential for the grant of pre-arrest bail is mala fide on the part of the complainant and relies on 2001 P.Cr.L Report 908. Further submits that recoveries of- weapons of offence are yet to be effected from the petitioners. Offences are yet to be effected from the petitioners.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. The petitioners are named in the FIR having been armed with different weapons and they caused injuries to the Ashiq Hussain. The contention of prosecution is supported by the MLR. There is seven days' delay in lodging the FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution although the record shows that the injured was examined on the same day. Injuries Nos. 1 and 3 caused by the petitioners have been declared by the doctor as Shajah Khafifah whereas according to the Dental Surgeon, there was very slight mobility of right upper central incisor and also the edges of two teeth were fractured. According to the opinion of the doctor, the offence falls under section 336, PPC. The contents of FIR fully reveal that there was no preplanning or consultation regarding the occurrence with took place at a spur of the moment a dispute regarding payment of Rs. 20/- the petitioner by the injured Ashiq Hussain, on account of sale of milk. Keeping in view circumstances of their case it is yet to be determined whether section 336, PPC is applicable in this case or not.
The investigation is still in progress. As far as argument advanced by learned counsel for the complainant are concerned, there was not an iota, of evidence to show that parties were inimical to each other, ln this view of the matter case of the petitioners falls within the ambit of further inquiry. I fully agree with the contentions raised and judgment relied upon, by learned counsel for the petitioners and allow this petition and confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of. Judicial Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate.