ISHTIAQ alias CHACHOO vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner seeking release in case F.I.R. No. 205 of 2005 registered under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Seetal Mari, District Multan. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest considering the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the medical report regarding the nature of the injury, and whether the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that the case was one of further inquiry due to a twelve-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the debatable application of Section 337-D, P.P.C. where the injury depth was not probed, and the lack of progress in the trial since the submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., coupled with uncertainties regarding the precise nature of the injury required to attract specific penal provisions and a delayed trial, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Does a twelve-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. make a criminal case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an offence under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the injury depth is not probed?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars indefinitely when there is no progress in the trial after the submission of the challan?
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.-Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.l.R. No,205 of 2005, dated 4-9-2005 for offence under section 337-D, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Seetal Mari, District Multan.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that on 23-8-2005 at about 7-00 p.m. When the complainant came out from her house, the petitioner gave a dagger blow on the belly of the complainant. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant, a number of persons of the village were attracted at the spot and the accused on seeing the said persons, escaped from the place of occurrence. The motive was stated to be the desire of the accused to marry the complainant who had refused his demand.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of 12 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which shows that the possibility of the name of the petitioner being falsely involved could not be ruled out; that the medical in the instant case was conducted on 30-8-2005 i.e. After a lapse of about seven days of the occurrence which also reflected negatively on the prosecution case; that the injury attributed to the petitioner was minor in nature as was evident from the medico-legal report; that the offence under section 337-D, P.P.C. Was punishable with Arsh equal to 1/3 of Diyat amount hence the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner therefore was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the petitioner had been named in the F.I.R, and specific role had been attributed to him of causing injury on the person of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi with a dagger; that the weapon of offence had been recovered from him; that the challan had been submitted on 22-10-2005 and the trial was likely to commence in the near future.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. There is a delay of twelve days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which shows that there was ample time for the complainant to deliberate. False involvement of the petitioner on account of dilatory F.I.R.
Cannot be ruled out. The injury alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner on the person of the Mst. Kalsoom Bibi appears to be a minor injury from the medical report which reveals that the depth of the injury was not probed. In that case, it cannot be said that the injury extended to the body cavity of the trunk which is a prerequisite for the application of section 337-D, P.P.C. Profitable reference can be made to the case of Zulfiqar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2285. Challan has been submitted on 22-10-2005 yet there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner cannot be allowed to remain behind the bars indefinitely.
8. Resultantly, the case of the petitioner being one of further inquiry, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.