NASEER and 3 others vs THE STATE
This petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by four petitioners accused of offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted, the recovery of weapons, and the petitioners' criminal history. The court held that while the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the specific role of petitioner No. 1—who caused a fracture of the ribs and had nine prior criminal cases registered against him—warranted the dismissal of his bail application. Conversely, the court granted bail to petitioners Nos. 2 to 4, noting their roles were minor. The key principle laid down is that even where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the court retains discretion to refuse pre-arrest bail based on the severity of the injury, the necessity of weapon recovery, and the accused's criminal record.
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court deny pre-arrest bail to an accused with a significant criminal history even if the charged offences are non-prohibitory?
- Is the severity of the injury inflicted a valid ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.685 of 2006, dated 29-12-2006, for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(v) 337-L(2) and 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners while armed with Sotas are alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant, whereupon the aforementioned F.I.R., was lodged against them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was a delay of six days in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained; that since the injuries received by the complainant were self-suffered, as such a Medical Board was constituted but despite reminders, the complainant Muhammad Abdullah did not appear before the Board that the father of petitioners had filed a complaint against the complainant and others with NAB authorities and the petitioners had been falsely involved in the case in order to pressurize their father to withdraw the said complaint and that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Were not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were nominated in the F.I.R. And specific roles had been ascribed to them of causing injuries to the complainant which fact was fully supported by the Medico-legal Report of the injured; that injury No.1 was attributed to petitioner No.1 which had resulted in fracture of ribs; that the complaint referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners purportedly filed with NAB authorities does not show the name of the complainant as an accused and, therefore, the same was of no consequence; that nine criminal cases had been registered against petitioner No.1 and his father under various provgions of Pakistan Penal Code and the Arms Ordinance; that the weapons used by the petitioners during the occurrence had yet to be recovered by the police and that during investigation the petitioners were found to be fully involved in the case by the police and, therefore, they were not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Although the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. And specific roles have been ascribed to them, however, petitioner No.1 has been attributed injury to the complainant resulting in fracture of ribs fully covered under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. However, the injuries assigned to petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 are minor in nature. Further, the weapon of offence has yet to be recovered from petitioner No.1 against whom nine A other criminal cases stand registered under different provisions of Pakistan Penal Code and the Arms 'Ordinance. During investigation, petitioner No.1 was found to be fully involved in the case by the police. Although the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Nevertheless the injury inflicted by petitioner No.1 is severe in nature.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted to the extent of petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 whereas the petition to the extent of petitioner No.1 stands dismissed. Therefore, the ad interim pre- arrest bail granted to petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 vide order, dated 14-2-2007 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bait bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.