MUZAFFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application arose from a criminal case registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was accused of causing injuries with a gun butt. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and considering the existence of a cross-version and pending civil litigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application, holding that for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. The Court observed that the petitioner had spent over three months in jail without the trial commencing, the maximum punishment for the offences was five years, and a cross-version of the occurrence existed, meaning the petitioner did not fall within any exceptional category warranting the refusal of bail.
- Whether bail should be granted as a rule in cases where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal effect of a cross-version of an occurrence on the assessment of a post-arrest bail application?
- Does a delay in the commencement of trial coupled with a period of incarceration justify the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This after arrest bail application has been filed in F.I.R. No,31 of 2005, dated 26-2-2005, under sections 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. At Police Station Miana Gondal, M.B. Din.
2. Briefly according to the F.I.R., petitioner caused injuries with butt of .12 bore gun on the left arm of the complainant, Naseem Bibi while co-accused caused injuries to witnesses.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the injuries alleged against the petitioner do not constitute case covered by the prohibitory clause. The maximum punishment provided is five years. He also submits that there is a delay of two days. The learned counsel contends that a cross-version has also been reported by the petitioner side and finally that civil litigation is pending regarding the land where occurrence is reported to have taken place.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is not an absolute role that cases which fall within non-prohibitory clause must be considered fit to be granted bail.
He submits that role of the petitioner is clearly mentioned as specific injuries attributed to him. He also submits that petitioner and his co-accused caused several injuries to the injured person mentioned in the F.I.R. The challan has already been submitted and charge has been framed. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that recovery has been effected in this case.
5. The learned counsel for the State also adopts arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was arrested on 21-3-2005, nearly 3-1/2 months have already been spent by him in the jail. The trial has not commenced. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended and referred to 2000 PCr.LJ 291 to argue that in every case in which the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause bail is not always granted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that normally in cases which do not fall within prohibitory clause bail is granted as a rule and its refusal is an exception. I think that the present petitioner does not fall in exceptional category. The maximum punishment is provided in these offences is five years and the petitioner spent more than three months in jail. The cross- version of the occurrence is also on record. In view of the above, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing surety bond of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.