RASOOL BAKHSH alias RASOOLA vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and attempted sexual misconduct. The FIR, registered under Sections 354, 452, 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, stemmed from an incident where the accused allegedly threatened the complainant with a knife and caused injury to another person. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary record. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to substantiate the application of Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as no X-ray was advised for the alleged injury. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell under the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the remaining offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court granted bail, emphasizing the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict and his period of incarceration.
- Does the absence of an X-ray for an alleged nose injury preclude the application of Section 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- When do offences not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- Does the lack of medical evidence regarding a specific injury justify a finding of 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Rasool Bakhsh alias Rasoola, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in Case: FIR No, 104 dated 15.3.2003 originally registered under Sections 354 and 452 PPC with Police Station Fazilpur District Rajanpur. Later on the police had added Section 33T-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) read with Section 34 PPC in the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per FIR is that on 13.3.2003 at about 9.00 a.m. complainant Mst Karim Mai and Mst. Tasleem Mai, the wife of her husband's younger brother Talib Hussain were present in the house. Rasool Bakhsh alias Rasoola (petitioner), who is their close relative and on visiting terms with them came there. He sat in the room there and called her to give him water to take the same. She when went to him, he said to her that he will commit zina with her and immediately brought out knife and extended her threat to kill in case she raised noise. He with the knife cut string of her shalwar and due to the same she became naked. She raised noise, whereupon Mst. Tasleem Mai reached there and tried to apprehend him. He pushed her and due to the same, her face struck with the door. They raised noise, whereupon he picked up her shalwar and fled away therefrom. Khalid Hussain was standing outside the door to guard him and help him.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had suspicion of illicit relation of Talib Hussain with his wife Mst. Rabia. The compromise had been effected between them in respect of the same but he in order to take revenge of the same had committed the above act.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is two days delay in lodging the FIR: that injury or the nose of Mst. Tasleem mai was not fractures of her such bone and so the offence u/S. 337-A (iii) is not attracted in this case while rest of the offences are not covered under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.; and that he is behind the bars since 19.3.2003 and is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
7. Learned State counsel has conceded that no X-ray had been suggested/advised of the injury on the nose of Mst. Tasleem. Mai. So the question of application of offence under Section 337-A(iii) PPC in the instant case needs consideration. Hence, from that angle, his case is covered under sub- section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. for calling of further inquiry into his guilt.
8. The rest of the offences with which he has been charged, are not covered under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
9. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
10. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfactibn of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.