Mubarik Ali vs The State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 450, 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harrappa, District Sahiwal, arising from an FIR dated 11.10.2004. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry and grant of post-arrest bail considering the statutory punishment, lack of recovery, affidavits of prosecution witnesses not supporting the involvement, and the period already spent behind bars. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he had been behind bars for five months without framing of charge, the injury attributed fell under a section carrying a two-year punishment, there was no recovery of the weapon, and prosecution witnesses submitted affidavits not supporting the petitioner's involvement. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail may be granted where the trial is likely to be delayed, the punishment for the offense is not prohibitory, and mitigating circumstances such as affidavits of non-involvement by witnesses exist.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial is not likely to commence in the near future and the charge has not been framed?
- Does the absence of recovery of the crime weapon warrant the grant of bail in non-prohibitory clauses?
- Can affidavits by prosecution witnesses not supporting the involvement of the accused be considered for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 450, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J:-~ Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 497/04, dated 110.2004 under sections 450, 337-A(i), 34,. P.P.C. Police Station Harrappa District Sahiwal.
2. As per FIR, petitioner was found in the courtyard of the complainant's house alongwith another person and he caused an injury on the head of the .; complainant with butt of his pistol.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner is behind the. Bars for the last five - months and there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future inasmuch as the charge has not been fraised; that there is no recovery of the crime weapon I.e. Pistol; that .-4 the P.Ws, named in the FIR have given the affidavits wherein they have not supported the involvement of the - , petitioner in the alleged occurrence; that there is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in such like cases; that the injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner falls within the mischief of Section 337-A(i), P.P.C, for which punishment is 2 years; that there is a delay of five days in lodging the FIR, not properly explained.
5. For what has been stated above, instant petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to bail subject | to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00.000/-. 1 (Rs. One lac) with two sureties each in the like. Amount to the I satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. I