HABIB AHMAD vs STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Habib Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 53 dated 22.5.2005 registered under Sections 337/A(iii), 337/A(i) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari, on allegations of causing a blunt weapon injury to the complainant with a wooden churner. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry and the grant of post-arrest bail given contradictions regarding weapon recovery and police investigation findings. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as the DSP's investigation declared him empty-handed, no recovery was effected from his possession, and prior precedents support granting bail under similar circumstances. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation casts doubt on the specific role attributed to an accused and no recovery is made, further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt brings the case within the scope of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the police investigation declares the accused empty-handed and no weapon is recovered?
- Does a contradiction between the FIR allegations and the police investigation warrant further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is an accused entitled to bail for an offence under Section 337/A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code when no recovery has been effected from his possession?
- Section 337/A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337/A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Petitioner-Habib Ahmad, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 53, dated 22.5.2005, under Sections 337/A(iii), 337/A(i) and 34 PPC, registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah, District Vehari.
2. 2.According to the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a blow of wooden churner to the complainant, which hit on his nose and the blood started. oozing, hence, this case.
3. 3.It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false and fabricated case was registered against him. There is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, in which no plausible explanation has been given. As per investigation conducted by DSP, the case against the petitioner is doubtful. He declared that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of alleged occurrence.
4. Further contends that there is a longstanding enmity between the parties and the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case. Relaying on 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 910, contends that a case having the same facts, bail was granted by the High Court for offence under Section 337/A(iii) PPC, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail.
5. 4.Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail application contending that the case against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The injury sustained by the complainant is not self-suffered, which was caused with blunt weapon. Imtiaz and Pervaiz while recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had supported the facts of the FIR. However, it is admitted that no recovery has been made effected from the petitioner's possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was declared by the DSP to be empty handed at the time of occurrence, whereas, in the FIR, it is stated that he caused injury with churner on the nose of the complainant. The said churner was not recovered from the petitioner's possession. Relying on PLD 1995 SC 34. and 2001 P.Cr. L.J. 910, petitioner has made a case for concession of bail. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.