ZAHOOR alias JARA and another vs STATE
The petitioners, Zahoor alias Jara and Sadiq, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 70/2004 registered under Section 334/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qadirpur Raan, District Multan, relating to the alleged assault on the complainant's mother and removal of her front tooth. The core legal question was whether the offense fell under Section 334 PPC (involving amputation of an organ or limb) or a lesser provision, and whether bail should be granted given the period of incarceration and commencement of trial. The Lahore High Court held that teeth are not an organ (the whole jaw being an organ), thereby reducing the applicability of the offense to Section 337-U PPC. The court ruled that the petitioners had made out a case for bail, noting that the commencement of trial does not hinder the grant of bail if otherwise made out. Consequently, post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners.
- Whether teeth constitute an organ or limb under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the mere commencement of trial create a legal hindrance to the grant of post-arrest bail if a case is otherwise made out?
- Whether an offense involving damage to teeth falls under Section 334 or Section 337-U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- 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 through this petition in case FIR No, 70/2004 dated 21,4.2004 registered on the complaint of Muhammad Javed against the petitioners u/S 334/34 PPC 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 us. 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 relies on 'Muhammaa Ismail us Muhammad Rafiq and another' (PLD 1989 S.C.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 contended 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 vs. Muhammad Rafiq and another" (PLD 1989 SC 585) and "Muhammad Shahid us. The State" (1997 P Cr. LJ 35) that mere commencement of trial if the case of petitioners is otherwise made out does not hinder in the way. Moreover, case u/S. 334 PPC, is made out if any organ or limb is amputated whereas fingers of hand or toss of foot are not organs and similarly, teeth are not an organ, the whole jaw in an organ. So, the petitioners' case at the most falls u/S. 337-U PPC. For what has been discussed above the case of petitioner is made out of bail resultanly the petitioners is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- each with two 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.