Pakistan Case Law
2007 YLR 1951

SHAFAAT ALI vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 YLR 1951
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Crl. Miscellaneous No.5102-B of 2006,
Date2006-07-10
Judge(s)Muhammad Muzammal Khan
ResultBail confirmed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shafaat Ali, who was accused of assault under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-F(i)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the status of the police investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad interim bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the specific injury attributed to the petitioner fell under section 337-F(i), which is punishable by one year of imprisonment and thus falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer confirmed the petitioner had joined the investigation, no recoveries were required, and the petitioner had no prior criminal history. The Court established the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and there is no risk of abscondance or evidence tampering, bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Does an offense punishable by one year of imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the offense is outside the prohibitory clause?
  • Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused has joined the investigation and no further recovery is required?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
pre-arrest bailprohibitory clausefurther inquirycriminal investigationbail confirmationassault

ORDER

' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Petitioner was refused bail before arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in case vide P.I.R. No.225, dated 3-5-2006, under sections 337-A(ii), 337- F(i)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Saddar Pattoki. The petitioner, thereafter, moved instant petition for the same relief and he was conferred ad interim pre-arrest bail on 26-6-2006, which has now been placed for confirmation.

2. Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the F.I.R., is that on 30-4-2006 at 1-00 p.m. Petitioner along with his son Shahzad while armed with a "Sota" assaulted and inflicted "Sota" blow on the backside of the head of the complainant. Petitioner also gave a fist blow on left shoulder of the complainant whereafter both the assailants inflicted injuries on his different'parts of the body.

2A. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Though bail was opposed with the arguments that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. With attribution of specific role yet the Investigating Officer reported that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but was empty handed. As per Medico-legal Report, the only injury attributed to the petitioner is with fist blow on the left shoulder of the complainant which invites offence under section 337-F(i), P.P.C., punishable with one Year of sentence. The petitioner besides being old man, has already joined the police investigation and according to the Investigating Officer, his person is no more needed, as nothing is to be recovered from him. The petitioner has no criminal history A to his credit and he hails from an ordinary agriculturist family of the area offence charged is not covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And in absence of any allegation of his abscondance or tampering with the prosecution evidence, bail is not to be withheld as of punishment. Aggression by the petitioner is yet to- be determined at the time of trial, which makes his case that of further inquiry. The petitioner will face the sentence if ultimately convicted by the trial Court.

3. For the reasons noted above, petitioner has made ' out a case for confirmation of his bail already granted to him by this Court. This petition is accordingly accepted and, petitioner's ad interim bail granted on 26-6-2006 is confirmed, pending trial of case against him,.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.