MUHAMMAD SAFDAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ansar, in connection with F.I.R. No. 56/2006 registered under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-A(iv), 337-A(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the proceedings, the counsel for the petitioners withdrew the bail plea for the first petitioner, Muhammad Safdar, resulting in the dismissal of his petition as not pressed. Regarding the second petitioner, Muhammad Ansar, the court considered allegations that he inflicted head injuries on the complainant using a brick. The court observed that the petitioner's specific intent to commit Qatl-e-Amd could only be determined during the trial after evidence is recorded. Finding that the case against the second petitioner warranted further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that he was no longer required for investigation, the court held that continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the court admitted the second petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Whether the allegation of throwing a brick is sufficient to establish the intent for Qatl-e-Amd at the bail stage?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the specific intent of the accused remains to be determined at trial?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they are no longer required for further investigation and continued detention serves no useful purpose?
- 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(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioners Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ansar through the instant petition have sought post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. 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 along with 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 mala 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 subsection (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.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABD-UR-RAZAK alias KARO vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1656
- GHULAM FARID vs SIFATULLAH and another 2009 YLR 280