ZAHOOR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners in an FIR registered under Section 334/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging an assault resulting in the removal or damage of a tooth. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether the offense fell under Section 334, PPC, whether teeth constitute an 'organ' under the law, and whether the commencement of trial prevents the grant of bail. The Court held that a tooth is not an organ, as the entire jaw constitutes the organ; thus, the offense at most fell under Section 337-U, PPC. Relying on settled precedents, the Court ruled that the mere submission of a challan and commencement of trial do not hinder the grant of bail if a case is otherwise made out. Consequently, post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that teeth are not organs under Section 334, PPC, and trial commencement is no bar to granting bail.
- Whether teeth constitute an organ for the purpose of Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the commencement of trial or submission of a challan operate as a bar to granting bail if a case is otherwise made out?
- Which provision of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 applies when a tooth is damaged or removed without amputating the whole jaw?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-U, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners, Zahoor alias Jara and Sadiq have sought post-arrest bail through this petition in case F.I.R. No.70 of 2004 dated 21-4-2004 registered on the complaint of Muhammad Javed against the petitioners under section 334/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District, Multan, whereby it was alleged that mother of the complainant was assaulted and her front tooth was removed/damaged and for that very matter petitioners were challaned on 24-6-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that case of the petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause relies on " Muhammad Shahid v. The State" 1997 PCr.LJ 35 and contended that though challan has been sent in the Court of competent jurisdiction but mere submission of challan and commencement of trial does not create hindrance in the way if case of the petitioner for bail is made out, relied on "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another" PLD 1989 SC
585. Further contends that the petitioners were stated to be empty-handed and arrested on 24-6- 2004. Petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than nine months.
3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition on the grounds that earlier petitioners moved their post-arrest bail before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn after some arguments vide order dated 15-9-2004. Further contend that case of the petitioners fall within prohibitory clause and challan has been submitted and trial has commenced.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Petitioners have been sent behind the bars for the last about more than nine months. Respectfully relying on "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and another" PLD 1989 SC 585 and "Muhammad Shahid v.
The State" 1997 PCr.LJ 35 that mere commencement of trial, if the case of petitioners is otherwise made out does not hinder in the way. Moreover, case under section 334, P.P.C. Is made out if any organ or limb is amputated whereas fmgers of hand or toes of foot are not organs and similarly, teeth are not an organ, the whole jaw Wan organ. So, _the petitioner's case at the most falls under section 337-U, P.P.C. For what has been discussed above the case of petitioners is made out of bail resultantly the petitioners is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with twc sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. However, the observation made in this petition shall not affect the proceedings in trial and the trial shall be concluded purely on merits.
Cited by 8 cases
- Ghulam Sarwar vs The State 2023 SHC 413
- Sajjad Ahmad vs The State, etc 2023 LHC 4300, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1074, 2024 YLR 1321
- SHAREEFAN BIBI vs STATE, etc. PLJ 2018 Cr.C. (Lahore) 499
- MUHAMMAD IBRAR vs The STATE and otherss 2014 YLR 482
- ARSHAD ALI vs THE STATE and another 2011 YLR 1933
- MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH alias MAQSOOD SHAH vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1210
- MASOOD HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 1732
- ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE and another 2007 YLR 361