HABIB AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Habib Ahmad, who was charged under sections 337-A(iii), 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR alleging he struck the complainant with a wooden churner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his involvement and the weapon used. The Court observed that the investigation conducted by the DSP concluded that the petitioner was empty-handed at the time of the occurrence, contradicting the FIR's allegation. Furthermore, no recovery of the alleged weapon was made from the petitioner. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that the petitioner had made a case for the concession of bail due to the doubtful nature of the prosecution's evidence. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where investigation findings contradict the FIR and no incriminating recovery is effected, a case for further inquiry is made out, entitling the accused to bail.
- Does the absence of weapon recovery from the accused constitute grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the police investigation report contradicts the allegations made in the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by conflicting evidence?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---Petitioner-Habib Ahmad, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.53, dated 22-5-2005, under sections 337/A(iii), 337-A(i) and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah, District Vehari.
2. According to the F.I,R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he gave a blow of wooden churner to the complainant, which hit on his nose and the blood started oozing, hence, this case.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a false and fabricated case was registered against him. There is delay of three days in lodging the FIR, in which no plausible explanation has been given. As per investigation conducted by DSP, the case against the petitioner is doubtful. He declared that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of alleged occurrence.
Further contends that there is a longstanding enmity between the parties and the .Petitioner has been falsely roped in this case. Relying on 2001 PCr.LJ 910, contends that a case having the same facts, bail was granted by the High Court for offence under section 337/A(iii), P.P.C., therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the bail application contending that the case against the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The injury sustained by the complainant is not self-suffered, which was caused with blunt weapon. Imtiaz and Pervaiz while recording their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had supported the facts of the F.I.R. However, it is admitted that no recovery has been made effected from the petitioner's possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner was declared by the DSP to be empty handed at A the time of occurrence, whereas, in the F.I.R., it is stated that he caused injury with churner on the nose of the complainant. The said churner was not recovered from the petitioner's possession. Relying on PLD 1995 SC 34 and 2001 PCr.LJ 910, petitioner has made a case for concession of bail. Therefore, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. .