AQEEL BAIG vs STATE
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Aqeel Baig, in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was accused of causing non-fatal injuries with a pump-action gun while his co-accused was alleged to have caused the fatal injury, was entitled to bail given the duration of his pre-trial incarceration and the nature of the offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the injuries attributed to him did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had been in custody for 26 months without significant trial progress and that his specific role required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the offences attributed to an accused do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the trial has been delayed, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Does an offence under Section 337-F(iii) and Section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the trial has been delayed for a significant period of 26 months?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific role attributed to him involves injuries to non-vital parts of the body, distinct from the fatal injury caused by a co-accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Aqeel Baig son of Inayat Baig, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 227/2004 dated 05.05.2004 registered at Police Station Saddar District Sialkot, for offences under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v)/34 PPC, Initially the case had been registered under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337- F(v), PPC but on expiry of Mst. Nawab Bibi Section 302 PPC had been added in the array of offences, on 16.5.2006.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the FIR registered at the instance of Maqbool Khan son of Abdul Ghani, the complainant, was that Aqeel Baig petitioner and his brother Shakeel Baig sons of Inayat Begum, had bought a buffalo from Nawab Bibi widow of Fazal Masih six months ago for Rs. 11,000/- on credit; they failed to pay the amount to Nawab Bibi despite her repeated demands; Shakil Baig, etc, were aggrieved of the fact that Nawab Bibi was badmouthing them in the village; that on 04.04.2005 about 5-00 p.m. they in the presence of the witnesses had extended threats to Nawab Bibi that she would be taught a lesson; on 05.05.2004 about 8:00 a.m. Shakil Baig armed with pump-action gun alongwith two unknown persons whose physical description has been given in the FIR and who were posing themselves to be police employees and could be identified, forced their entry into the house of Nawab Bibi; they hurled filthy abuses at Nawab Bibi and other inmates of the house; meanwhile complainant's son Tanvir Khan alias Munna reached the scene and restrained the accused persons frofn their illegal acts; the accused got infuriated whereupon Aqeel Baig with his pump-action fired a shot at his son Tanyir Khan which hit him on the right leg and foot; the second fire made by Aqeel petitioner hit Tanvir on the left leg and foot; Mst. Nawab intervened to rescue Tanvir whereupon Shakil fired with his pistol which hit Nawab Bibi on the right side of her abdomen near the ribs; thereafter they kept on raising lalkaras that whomsoever came near would be killed; on arrival of the witnesses they fled from the scene extending threats of serious consequences. Resultantly the instant FIR had been recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 13.05.2004 and is in custody ever since. His application for post arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide his order dated 16.11.2005. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Saif-ul-Malook, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Shami, Advocate the learned State Counsel and the record brought by Muhammad Riaz AS!, Police Station Saddar Sialkot has been perused.
5. It has been observed that Shakil Baig co-accused to whom the main role of causing fatal injury to Nawab Bibi had been attributed had neither been arrested nor has he been challaned by the police having been declared to be innocent. As a result of opinion of innocence rendered qua him, the complainant had to file a private complaint on 10.03.2005. I am told that both, the present petitioner and his co-accused Shakil Baig have since been summoned in the said private complaint and Shakil Baig has furnished bail bond to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance.
6. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, both the injuries allegedly caused by him with his pump- action gun have been declared by the doctor to be falling under Section 337-F(iii) and 337-F(v)
PPC. Both the said penal provisions do not attract the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1) Cr.P.C, He is in custody for the last 26 months and I am told that no tangible progress has been made in the trial.
7. The post-mortem report of Nawab Bibi (deceased) shows that she had received a wound 11/2 x 1 cm on front of abdomen which B apparently appears to have been caused with a pistol.
Admittedly the petitioner was not armed with a pistol and it is also the claim of the prosecution that a pump-action gun had been recovered from him.
8. In view of the role attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution itself viz. that being armed with pump-notion gun he had confined himself to causing injuries to the complainant on non-vital parts of his body his complicity under Section 324 PPC and his liability under Section 34 PPC call for further probe.
9. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is 'admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10.The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the course of trial in any manner whatsoever.