KHIZER ABBAS and otherss vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 through which the petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 152 registered under sections 382, 341, 411, 355, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Bhakkar. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of injuries, the statutory prohibitory clause, and the period of incarceration. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the medical evidence showed only simple injuries, the recovery of currency notes was doubtful regarding connection to the crime, and bail cannot be withheld as punishment given the protracted period of detention without conclusion of the trial. The key principle laid down is that pre-trial detention cannot be used as a form of punishment and bail should be granted when further inquiry is warranted and trial is not likely to conclude soon.
- Whether bail can be granted when the injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and fall within a bailable section?
- Does the recovery of unspecified currency notes sufficiently connect the accused to the crime for the purpose of withholding bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the accused have already spent a considerable period behind bars without the trial concluding?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 355, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L (ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,152, dated 27-5-2005, registered under sections 382/341/411/355/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Saddar Bhakkar District Bhakkar on the application of Alam Sher.
2. The complainant has stated in the F.I.R. That he is General Councillor of the Union Council and also works as a clerk with Mr. Muhammad Tariq Khan Baluch, Advocate. On 27-5-2005 at about 8- 00 a.m. He was coming in the Court on duty along with Ihsan Ullah who was sitting on the rear seat of motorcycle from his house. When they reached near Chah Mootivala, the accused persons came out from the shop and stood at the road who forcibly alighted down the complainant from the said motorcycle. Allah Wasaya co-accused was armed with Kalashnikov, Ghulam Abbas petitioner was armed with hunter and pistol and Khizar Abass petitioner was armed with 'Danda' and 'Churra'. Allah Wasaya asked the complainant to strip off the clothes and on the refusal of the complainant he made two fires in the air and Ghulam Abbas and Khizar Abbas petitioners along with two unknown persons who were armed with fire-arms tore the clothes of the complainant and also injured him with hunter and Danda. The accused persons also snatched wrist watch and purse of the complainant along with Rs,4,600 and also the Identity Card. In the meanwhile, from the back side on a motorcycle Qadir Bakhsh who was coming towards Bhakkar also reached there.
Besides him other so many people gathered there. The accused persons not only made the complainant naked but also gave him beating. Hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case is totally false and the petitioners are innocent, who are also not previously involved in such-like cases except Allah Wasaya co-accused, and that the offences except under section 382, P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And offence under section 382, P.P.C. Is not attracted.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioners had participated actively in the occurrence and offence under section 382, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
6. According to the medico-legal report attached with this petition at page 14 only the simple injuries were found on the person of the complainant falling within the purview of section 337-L (ii), P.P.C., which is bailable offence and possibility cannot be ruled out for exaggerating the story by the complainant who is a General Councillor and also clerk of an Advocate. The petitioners are not previously involved in such-like cases. Even otherwise, it was not specifically mentioned that the petitioners had snatched the amount of Rs,4,600 from the complainant and recovery of Rs,3,000 from the possession of the petitioners does not connect them with the commission of the crime as denomination of the notes have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. It is also notable that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last 7 months but there is no likelihood of the conclusion of the trial in near future and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment as is laid down in PLD 1997 SC
81. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial /Illaqa Magistrate.