MUHAMMAD SAFDAR and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ansar, in relation to FIR No. 56/2006, registered under Sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 337-A(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petition was not pressed by the first petitioner, Muhammad Safdar, and was consequently dismissed to that extent. Regarding the second petitioner, Muhammad Ansar, the allegation involved inflicting injuries on the complainant via brick blows. The Court examined whether the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner's specific intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd could not be determined at the bail stage and required evidence at trial. Finding that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the Court admitted him to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the applicability of a serious charge is debatable and requires further inquiry, bail should be granted.
- Does the use of a brick to cause injury automatically establish an intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd for the purpose of bail?
- When does a case against an accused person qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are no longer required for further investigation and the trial is pending?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ansar through the instant .petition have sought post-arrest bail in a case FIR. No.56, dated 9-2-2006 under Sections 324/337-A(ii)/337-A(iv)/337- A(v)/34, P.P.C. registered with. Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case at some length, does not press this petition to the extent of Petitioner No. 1, Muhammad Safdar.
3. Dismissed as having not been pressed to the extent of Muhammad Safdar,. Petitioner No. 1.
4. Briefly the allegation against Petitioner No.2, Muhammad Ansar is that he alongwith his co- accused inflicted brick blows on different parts of the body of Umar Farooq, injured P.W.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant F.I.R. has been lodged with male fide intention of the complainant as well as that of the local police. Section 324, P.P.C. does not attract in the petitioner's case. The injuries attributed to him are simple in nature. His co- accused has been allowed bail by the Illaqa Magistrate. His case calls for further inquiry into his guilt. The alleged recovery from him is false and. fabricated. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
7. Allegation against Petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Ansar is that he inflicted injury by throwing brick, which landed upon the head of Umar Farooq, injured P.W. The intention of the petitioner would be determined at the time of trial after recording evidence. Only by throwing a brick, it cannot be said with certainty that the intention of the petitioner was to commit the Qatl-e-Amd of injured P.W. The case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation. To keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and Petitioner No.2 Muhammad Anwar is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.