ABDUL RASHEED and another vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of an F.I.R. registered under sections 324, 336, 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioners were accused of launching a criminal assault and causing multiple injuries to the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature and severity of the injuries attributed to them. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to bail, noting that the complainant and witnesses sustained numerous injuries, including a sharp-edged head injury resulting in a fracture, and that trial proceedings had already commenced with the recording of the complainant's statement. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons are charged with causing multiple serious injuries resulting in fractures and trial proceedings are underway, post-arrest bail is appropriately declined.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when facing allegations of causing multiple serious injuries including fractures during a criminal assault?
- Does the commencement and active progress of trial proceedings influence the decision to grant or withhold post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---The petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.299, registered at Police Station Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan, for offences under sections 324/336/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-F(v), P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other accused launched criminal assault upon the complainant party and caused injuries to Riaz Ahmad-complainantas well as Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Irfan, Muhammad Rehan P.Ws.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a very large let has been thrown by the complainant, that the injuries attributed to the petitioners were not only simple but where also non-specific that the intention to kill is prima facie ruled Out as allegedly wrong side of the atchet was used by the accused/petitioners.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have opposed this application and have argued that four persons have received serious injuries at the hands of accused. The learned counsel have pointed out that injury on the temporal region of the head of Muhammad Rehan resulted into fracture and that due to the said injury he suffered right sided fiscal palsy.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that Riaz Ahmad-complainant received a sharp-edged injury on his head, which caused fracture, the complainant and P.Ws. Sustained 16 injuries on their persons, furthermore certified copy of the order, dated 3-2-2006 passed by the learned Trial Court reveals that all the witnesses were present and statement of the complainant was recorded but the case had to be adjourned on the request of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioner's. I am not inclined to admit the petitioners to bail. Hence this petition stands disposed of.