SHER AMEER vs STATE
This matter arises from a miscellaneous petition filed by Sher Ameer seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 77 dated 13.10.2005 registered at Police Station Dullewala, District Bhakkar, under Sections 336, 337A(iv), and 337F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the statutory prohibition against bail under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied to the offences charged, where imprisonment is discretionary and punishments like Arsh or Qisas are applicable. The Lahore High Court held that since the punishment of imprisonment under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code is purely discretionary and the primary liability relates to Arsh or Qisas, the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted, particularly as the occurrence was the result of a sudden flare-up. The petition was consequently accepted and the petitioner was granted bail subject to surety.
- Does the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to offences under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code where imprisonment is discretionary?
- Is bail to be granted when an occurrence appears to be the result of a sudden flare-up involving hurt to teeth?
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337U, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Sher Ameer petitioner through this miscellaneous petition has sought bail in case FIR No, 77 dated 13.10.2005 registered at Police Station Dullewala, District Bhakkar for offences under Sections 336, 337A(iv), 337F(i) PPC.
2. As per FIR, Rehmat Ali complainant accompanied by his brother Ehsan Ullah was busy in making a fence with sarkandas for his sheep. Sher Ameer petitioner came there. He abused the complainant and asked him as to why he was raising the fence on his land. The complainant paid Sher Ameer petitioner in the same coin upon which the latter went away. Shortly thereafter Sher Ameer again arrived with a danda in his hand, which he inflicted on the face of the complainant. As a result of which half of his tooth was broken and the adjacent tooth became shaky.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the punishment for Iltaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw primarily makes the offender liable to Arsh which is 1/20th of the diyat under Section 337U, PPC.
Whereas u/S. 336 P.P.C. the sentence of imprisonment up to 10 years is discretionary, as such, the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. shall not prevent this Court from releasing the petitioner on bail.
4. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. According to the Medico-Legal Report, half tooth of Rehmat Ullah complaint was found to be missing. Under Sections 334 and 336, PPC if the offender is found to have caused Italf-e-Udw or Itlaf-e-Salahiyat-e-Udw, it is mandatory for the Court to punish him with Qisas or Arsh as the case may be. The punishment with imprisonment is purely discretionary, therefore, the prohibition contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. shall not be attracted. The occurrence appears to be the result of a sudden flare up. I, therefore, accept this petition and enlarge the petitioner on bail. subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Raga/duty Magistrate.