EJAZ AHMED alias JAJJI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail for offences including attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and hurt under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Arms Ordinance. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail despite being specifically named in the first information report with a distinct role, supporting medical evidence, recovery of the weapon, and a prima facie case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the petitioner failed to make out a case for bail as the allegations were fully supported by eyewitness accounts, corroborative medical evidence, and recovery during investigation. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to conclude the ongoing trial expeditiously.
- Whether an accused named in the first information report with a specific role and supporting medical evidence is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be granted when the weapon of offence is recovered from the accused and the trial is proceeding after the framing of the charge?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 11-B, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 429, dated 7-7-2006 for offences under sections 324, 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), 341, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And section 11-B of the Arms Ordinance, registered at Police Station Saddar Samundri, District Faisalabad.
2. The petitioner's bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order, dated 9-4- 2007 which was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No.315-L of 2007 but the same was withdrawn as not pressed on 3-7-2007. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred another bail petition bearing No.6758-B/2007 which was dismissed by this Court as the grounds urged by the petitioner had already been considered in the earlier order. This order was also assailed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Criminal Petition No. 513-L of 2007 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as under:-- "The learned counsel when confronted that in the given situation the interference of this Court is not justified at this stage, he without further pressing this petition submitted that petitioner may be permitted to repeat his request of bail before the High Court at appropriate stage."
(2) In view thereof, we without commenting upon the merits of the case, dismiss this petition as not pressed with the observation that the petitioner may, if so desires, approach the High Court afresh at appropriate stage and if a bail application is moved by him before the High Court, the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier order passed by the High Court or this order.
3. In view of the above order, the instant petition is again being decided on merits.
4. It has been observed that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And specific role has been ascribed to him of causing injury on the outer side of right thigh of Abdul Ghafoor, the injured prosecution witness. Thus, to the extent of injury caused by the petitioner, the medico-legal report is in consonance with the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The injured and the eye-witnesses of the occurrence have fully implicated the petitioner in the crime and have furnished an account which is in line with the contents of the F.I.R. During investigation, weapon of offence was also recovered from the petitioner which further connects him with the prosecution case. Since prima facie offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is attracted in the case, therefore, the offence squarely falls within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to add here that during investigation the petitioner was found to be fully involved in the crime and consequently, challan has been submitted in the trial Court. After framing of charge against the accused, the trial is in progress.
5. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed being without merit. Since charge in the case has been framed and trial proceedings are in progress, therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial without loss of unnecessary time and preferably within three months.