ZAHID HAFEEZ vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zahid Hafeez in case F.I.R. No. 273 of 2005 registered under sections 337-F(5), 337-F(1), 337-F(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Yousaf Wala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the existence of cross-versions, suppressed injuries on the accused side, and unexplained delay in the registration of the F.I.R. The court held that since the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, investigation is complete, the petitioner has been incarcerated for a significant period, and the case involves suppressed injuries and two competing versions, the petitioner has made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that bail is appropriately granted in cases outside the prohibitory clause where further detention serves no useful purpose and mitigating factors such as unexplained delay and suppression of cross-version injuries exist.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Does the existence of a cross-version and suppression of injuries on the accused party justify the grant of bail?
- Is unexplained delay in the registration of the F.I.R. a ground for considering post-arrest bail favourably?
- Section 337-F(5), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No, 273 of 2005 dated 2-7-2005 under sections 337-F(5), 337F(1), 337-F(2)/ 148/149 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Yousaf Wala District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner along with four others variously armed attacked the complainant side and caused injuries with their respective weapons.
3. It is contended that there is a delay of three days in the registration of the case; that it is a case of two versions and the injuries on the person of the accused persons have been suppressed; that in a complaint filed by Mst. Musarrat mother of the petitioner complainant party have been summoned by the learned Magistrate vide order, dated 8-10-2005; that the offences against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory Clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 21-7-2005; that he is no more required by the police for any further investigation. It is also argued that Muhammad Saleem and Shahid co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant contends that weapon of offence {{URDU TEXT}} has been recovered from the petitioner; that two direct injuries are attributed to the petitioner; that petitioner's cross-version was recorded by the police but was not believed and was repelled during investigation; that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role; that although the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause but, in view of 2005 SCM R 1402 in the case which does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail should not be granted as a matter of rule.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The case is one of two versions. Complainant's side has already been summoned by the learned Magistrate after having considered the prima facie evidence led by the petitioner's side. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497,. Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars since 21-7-2005. Investigation of the case is almost complete.
Person of the petitioner is no more required by the police. Injuries sustained by the accused persons have not been disclosed in the F.I.R. There is a delay of 3 days in, the registration of the case without there being any explanation. For all these reasons I am inclined to allow this application. Resultantly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Courtallaqa Magistrate.
Cited by 1 case
- TAHZEEB SHAHID alias QAVI vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1513