ZULFIQAR ALI vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 17 dated 7-1-2006 registered under sections 334, 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Seetal Maari, Multan, wherein the petitioner was accused of inflicting a head blow resulting in the extraction of the complainant's front tooth. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the injuries attributed to him, his police clearance of innocence, and his previous non-convict status. The Lahore High Court held that section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not attracted to the facts, noting instead that the injury fell under Itlaf-e-Deant attracting section 337-U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, punishable by Arsh rather than rigorous imprisonment. The court laid down the principle that where an accused has been declared innocent by the police, is a previous non-convict, has been incarcerated for a substantial period, and the offence carries financial compensation rather than lengthy imprisonment, further detention would not advance the prosecution case, thereby warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused declared innocent by the police and previously non-convict is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an injury involving the extraction of a tooth attract section 334 or section 337-U of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is continued incarceration justified where the penal provision prescribes Arsh instead of rigorous imprisonment?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-U, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.-Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,17 dated 7-1-2006 registered under sections 334/337-L(ii)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Seetal Maari, Multan. The allegation against the petitioner is that he allegedly inflicted head blow on the face of the complainant, resultantly his front tooth became extracted along with his co-accused.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case; that he has been declared innocent by the police; that the petitioner was injured and his application for registration of the cross-version is pending before the competent forum and that the petitioner is previously non-convict. Injuries Nos.1 and 2 falling under section 337-L(ii), P.P.C.
Even attributed to Ishfaq co-accused, who is admitted to pre arrest bail.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Injury No,1 has been declared to fall under the definition of Itlaf-e-Deant attracting provisions of section 337-U, P.P.C. Which is attributed to the petitioner. Section 334, P.P.C. Is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of injury and punishment of section 337-U, P.P.C. Is Arsh instead of rigorous imprisonment. Reliance is placed on Zahoor Ahmad and another v. The State (2005 YLR 1664). Admittedly the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police. He is previously non-convict. He is in jail since 19-1-2006. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case.
6. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Sajjad Ahmad vs The State, etc 2023 LHC 4300, PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 1074, 2024 YLR 1321