MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No. 75 of 2006 registered at Police Station Gaggo District Vehari for offences under sections 337-F(vi), 337-F(ii), 337-L(ii), 337-II(ii) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail where they are nominated in the F.I.R., attributed specific roles involving injuries falling within the prohibitory clause, and where recovery of weapons is pending without establishing mala fides on the part of the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that the petition is without merit and dismissed it, recalling the ad interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that the absence of demonstrated mala fides on the part of the complainant, coupled with tentative assessment showing prima facie connection with offences falling within the prohibitory clause and pending recoveries, disentitles an accused to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused fails to establish mala fides on the part of the complainant?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when charged with an offence punishable with a sentence of seven years falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Does delay in lodging the F.I.R. automatically entitle the accused to pre-arrest bail if the delay is explained?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-II(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No. 75 of 2006, dated 5-2-2006 for offences under sections 337-F(vi)/337-F(ii)/337-L(ii)/337-11(ii)/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Gaggo District Vehari.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and others while armed with rifle, sotas and iron rods caused injuries on different parts of the body of Muhammad Iqbal P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of five days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained by the complainant hence false involvement of the petitioners could not be ruled out; that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioners; that the co- accused for the petitioners namely Abid and Sajid had been declared innocent by the police; that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that the petitioners had been nominated in the F.I.R.
And specific roles had been attributed to them; that the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Had been explained; that petitioner No.2 Muhammad Aslam had caused injury on the shoulder of Muhammad Iqbal which resulted in fracture of the bone and displacement of the joint; that during the investigation also the petitioners were found to be fully involved in the case; that the co- accused Sajid and Abid had not been declared innocent by the police and that the offence under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C., was punishable with a sentence of seven years hence the petitioners were not. Entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail particularly as recovery had yet to be effected from them.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Petitioner No.1 armed with a rifle whereas petitioner No.2 armed with rota along with other accused attacked the complainant party inflicted serious injuries on the person of Muhammad Iqbal P.W. Who suffered a fracture of the bone and displacement of joint of the shoulder fully covered under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. Punishable with a sentence of seven years. The petitioners were found fully involved by the Investigating Officer. Needless to mention that the petitioners have not been able to point out any mala fides on the part of the complainant for their false involvement in the case which is a condition precedent for the grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Although the F.I.R. Is delayed by five days nevertheless the delay has been explained by the complainant. The weapons of offence have yet to be recovered from the petitioners. Perusal of the evidence on the record reveals that there is ample evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them.
7. Resultantly, the petition being without merit is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 7-6-2006 is recalled.