MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another-s vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302, 149, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the nature of the allegations. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with significant delay, the petitioners were not alleged to have caused injury to the deceased, and the specific sites of injuries attributed to the petitioners were omitted from the FIR. Furthermore, the investigation report declared one petitioner innocent and physically incapable of assault, while the other was found to have suffered injuries that were suppressed by the complainant party. Additionally, a private complaint had been filed by the accused party. Holding that the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners, the Court granted bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that continued incarceration would serve no beneficial purpose as the investigation was complete and co-accused had already been granted bail.
- Does the suppression of injuries suffered by an accused in an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the investigating agency finds a petitioner innocent and physically incapable of committing the alleged assault?
- Is the filing of a private complaint by the accused party a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Through this petition Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Ramzan petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,38 registered at Police Station Saddar Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on 7-2-2004 for offences under section 148/302/149, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i) and 337-L(2), P.P.C. Were added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay and admittedly both the present petitioners had not caused any injury to Muhammad Arshad deceased. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No,1 had given three Danda blows to Iftikhar P.W. And Muhammad Ramzan petitioner No,2 had given two Danda blows to Amjad Khan complainant but it has significantly been noticed by me that the seats of the injuries allegedly caused by both the present petitioners had not been mentioned in the F.I.R. The present petitioners were not directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. The report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. Shows that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No,1 had been found to be innocent and nothing had been recovered from his possession. It had been found by the Investigating Agency that petitioner No,1 is a crippled person and he was physically incapable of launching an assault upon anybody. As regards Muhammad Ramzan petitioner No,2 it had been found by the Investigating Agency that the occurrence in hand had been initiated by the complainant party itself and petitioner No,2 was not present at the scene at the initial stages but he was attracted to the spot when Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No,1 was teased by the complainant party and thereafter both the parties had fought with each other. Muhammad Ramzan petitioner No,2 was also found to have suffered three injuries on his person including some on his vital parts of the body but his injuries had been completely suppressed in the F.I.R. ,A private complaint has already been instituted by the accused party of this case against the complainant party advancing its own version of the alleged incident.
The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
Two of the co-accused of the present petitioners namely Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Yousaf have already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.