ZAHID HAFEEZ vs STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 273 of 2005 registered under Sections 337-F(5), 337-F(1), 337-F(2)/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yousaf Wala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the case involves cross-versions, unexplained delay in FIR registration, suppression of injuries on the accused, and offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, investigation is complete, the petitioner has been incarcerated for a substantial period, and the case involves two versions with unexplained delay and unaddressed injuries of the accused, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail should be granted in cases outside the prohibitory clause when further detention serves no useful investigative purpose and mitigating circumstances such as cross-versions and unexplained delays exist.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the existence of a cross-version and unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR constitute grounds for the grant of bail?
- Whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused persons in the FIR supports the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(5), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 273 of 2005 dated 2.7.2005 under Sections 33-F(5), 337-F(1), 337-F(2)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala District Sahiwal.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that petitioner alongwith four others variously armed attacked the complainant side and caused injuries with their respective weapons.
3. 3.It is contended that there is a delay of three days in the registration of the case; that it is a case of two versions and the injuries on the person of the accused persons have been suppressed; that in a complaint filed by Mst. Musarrat mother of the petitioner, complainant party have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 8.10.2005; that the offences against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is behind the bar since 21.7.2005; that he is no more required by the police for any further investigation. It is also argued that Muhammad Saleem and Shahid co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned ASJ.
4. 4.On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant contends that weapon of offence () has been recovered from the petitioner; that two direct injuries are attributed to the petitioner; that petitioner's cross-version was recorded by the police but was not believed and was repelled during investigation; that the petitioner is named in the FIR with a specific role; that although the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause but in view of 2005 SCM R 1402 in the case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be granted as a matter of rule.
5. 5.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The case is one of two versions. Complainant's side has already been summoned ummoned by the learned Magistrate after having considered the prima facie evidence led by the petitioner's side. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. He is behind the bar since 21.7.2005. Investigation of the case is almost complete. Person of the petitioner is no more required by the police. Injuries sustained by the accused persons have not been, disclosed in the FIR. There is a delay of 3 days in the registration of the case without there being any explanation. For all these reason I am inclined to allow this application. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.