MITHO and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants, Mitho and Zawar, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the grant of bail, considering the nature of the injuries inflicted, the lack of specific roles assigned to the accused in the First Information Report, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injuries sustained by the victims fell under sections 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of specific role attribution and the fact that the applicants had been incarcerated for fifteen months without the charge being framed. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and granted bail to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and there is a lack of specific role attribution, the case is one of further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.
- Does an offence punishable with less than the threshold of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when no specific role is attributed to the accused in the First Information Report?
- Does the delay in framing a charge after fifteen months of incarceration constitute a valid ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Learned counsel for the applicants says that per the F.I.R., applicant/accused Mitho was armed with a pistol whereas Zawar was armed with a hatchet, Misri with a Lathi, Umlakh alias Muloon and Teka both were armed with pistols, but no role has been given to any of the accused as to who caused the injuries to the inmates of the house viz. Shirimati Sharma and Arjan. Secondly, per learned counsel, no recovery has been made from the applicants Mitho and Zawar. Finally, learned counsel says that in the 161, Cr.P.C. Statement of the P.Ws. It is mentioned that injured Sharma grappled with the accused, which is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And so also the punishment is only a short and does not come within the prohibitory clause.
2. ' Learned State Counsel has not opposed the bail mainly on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused, hence at the moment it could be a question of further inquiry as to which of the accused inflicted the injuries at Sharma and Arjan.
3. ' I have heard both the learned counsel.
4. 'It would be seen per the medical certificate of Arjan, he has received three injuries, which have been certified as being under section 337-A(i), P.P.C. And punishable with two years R.I. Whereas the injury suffered by Mst. Sharma has been certified as being under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C.
5. Punishable with up to 5 years and hence both the punishments do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Secondly, it would also be seen that no role has been given to any of the accused as to which of them inflicted the injuries on the injured. In fact a sweeping statement has been made that all of them hit the injured with their weapons.
6. ' Hence in view of the above facts and circumstances, in my opinion the applicants case is one of further enquiry. So also it would be seen that they have passed 15 months in jail according to the report of the trial Court not even the charge has been framed. I would thus enlarge the applicants on bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 each along with P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.