Habib Ahmad vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Habib Ahmad, who was charged under Sections 337-A(i) and 337-A(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 34 of the same code, in connection with an FIR alleging he caused injury to the complainant with a wooden churner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his role and the weapon used. The petitioner argued that the case was fabricated, citing a three-day delay in the FIR and an investigation report by a DSP declaring him empty-handed. The State opposed the bail, arguing the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the discrepancy between the FIR allegations and the investigation report, combined with the lack of recovery of the alleged weapon, created sufficient doubt to warrant relief. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the accused to bail, establishing that material contradictions in the prosecution's case regarding the weapon and the accused's role justify the grant of bail.
- Does a police investigation report declaring an accused empty-handed constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the non-recovery of an alleged weapon of offense entitles an accused to bail?
- Can bail be granted when there is a significant discrepancy between the FIR allegations and the subsequent police investigation?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J. - Petitioner-Habib Ahmad, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I R. No. 53, dated 22.5.2005, under Sections 337/A(iii), 337/A(i) and 34, PPC, registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah, District Vehari.
2. According to the FH.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a blow of wooden churner to the complainant, which hit on his nose and the blood started oozing, hence, this case.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false and fabricated case was registered against him There is delay of three days in lodging the F.LR., in which no plausible explanation has been given. As per investigation conducted by DSP, the case against the petitioner is doubtful. He declared that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of alleged occurrence.
Further contends that there is. a longstanding enmity between'-the parties and the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case, Relying on 2001. P.Cr.L.J. 910, contends that a case having the same facts, bail was granted by the High Court for offence under Section 337/A(iii), PPC, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail application contending that the case against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. .The injury sustained by the complainant is not self- suffered, which was caused with blunt weapon. Imtiaz and Pervaiz while recording their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, had supported the facts of the F.I.R. However, it is admitted that no recovery has been made effect from the petitioner's possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was declared by the DSP' to be empty handed at the time of occurrence, whereas, in the F.I.R., it is stated that he caused injury with churner on the nose of the complainant. The said churner was- not recovered from the petitioner's possession. Relying on PLD 1995 SC 34 and 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 910, petitioner has made a case for concession of bail. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.