MAHMOOD AHMAD and 3 others vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 269 of 2007, registered under sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of armed assault. The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail, arguing that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay, that they were falsely implicated due to existing litigation, and that the prosecution's medical evidence was fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the medico-legal report on the police file pertained to an individual named Muhammad Arshad, who was neither the complainant nor mentioned in the F.I.R., rather than the complainant himself. The Deputy Prosecutor-General conceded this discrepancy. The Court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. cast doubt on the prosecution's case, and the absence of a valid medico-legal report for the complainant, coupled with the reliance on an irrelevant report, supported the petitioners' claim of false implication. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that significant discrepancies in medical evidence and unexplained procedural delays are valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a petition for pre-arrest bail be allowed when the prosecution relies on a medico-legal report of an individual not named in the F.I.R.?
- Is the absence of a valid medico-legal report for the complainant a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 269 of 2007, dated 12-8-2007 for offence under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Satghara, Tehsil and District Okara.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and otherswhile armed with fire-arm weapons are alleged to have injured the complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been explained; that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case on account of pending litigation between the parties; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry as in the F.I.R. It is stated that the complainant has been injured by the petitioners, however, the medico-legal report onthe police file pertains to one Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Yousaf who is neither cited in the F.I.R. Nor has anything to do with the case.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after going through the record has conceded that the medico-legal report available on the file pertains to one Muhammad Arshad and not the complainant and the said Muhammad Arshad is admittedly neither named in the F.I.R. Nor is in anyway associated with the case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The delay in lodging the F.I.R. Has not been explained which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. False implication of the petitioner on account thereof cannot be ruled out.
The medico-legal report of the complainant is not on the file but instead the medico-legal report of one Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Yousaf is available on the record. The said Muhammad Arshad is neither named in the F.I.R. Nor has the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General been able to show that he has any concern with the instant case. No plausible explanation has been provided by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General in the said respect. Even otherwise, the injury mentioned in the medico-legal report of Muhammad Arshad is on the left leg which is a non- vital part of the body.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest to the petitioners vide order, dated 31-8-2007 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.