GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioner, Ghulam Muhammad, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 220 dated 18-4-2007 registered under Section 335/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhowana, District Jhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injury and the circumstances of the altercation. The Lahore High Court held that the incident occurred at the spur of the moment, the weapon used was a common agricultural sickle, and only a small part of the victim's ear was injured with the remaining ear intact. The court decided that the case fell within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and admitted the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an offence arises from a sudden altercation without pre-planning and the injury sustained does not strictly warrant continued incarceration, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an incident occurs at the spur of the moment without pre-planning?
- Does a case fall under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the nature of the injury requires further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no useful purpose is served by keeping them behind bars for an indefinite period?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 335, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Ghulam Muhammad petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,220, dated 18-4-2007 registered under section 335/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Bhowana District Jhang on the statement of Shams-ud-Din.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R. Is that on 7-4-2007 the accused abused the complainant's servant for destruction of fodder of buffaloes and there was some exchange of kick and fist blows.
The complainant's servant Sarfraz came to him and told about the occurrence. The complainant went to the accused persons for making the complaint whereupon an altercation took place between the complainant and the accused persons and the matter culminated to abusing each other. Meanwhile Amjad and unknown accused caught hold of him in clasp while Ghulam Muhammad petitioner who was armed with sickle forcibly cut his half ear and blood started oozing from the wound. On his hue and cry Amjad and Anwar P.Ws. Along with other people came at the spot and the accused while seeing them fled away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the F.I.R. The complainant/victim has himself admitted that he had gone to the house of the complainant party to lodge a complaint when the incident took place; that the complainant party was the aggressor party; that the F.I.R. Was recorded after 11 days without any explanation; that the petitioner is not involved in such-like case previously; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about five months while the occurrence at the most had taken place at the spur of moment and the accused party had not come at the spot for assaulting upon the complainant with pre-planning.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposes this petition on the ground that the specific role has been attributed to the petitioner; that the occurrence had taken place at the thoroughfare; that it was a case of Itlaf-i-Udw and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. From the contents of the F.I.R. Prima facie it is found that the incident had taken place at the spur of moment and the sickle which is usually used by the farmers had been used by the petitioner for causing an injury on the ear of the victim. The victim is also present in the Court and only a small piece of his ear is found to have been cut and the remaining ear is found intact. The case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry and is fully covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Even otherwise no useful purpose can be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. Hence this petition is accepted and Ghulam Muhammad petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties such in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.