NOOR MUHAMMAD alias NOOR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Noor Muhammad and Allah Ditta, who were charged in F.I.R. No. 148 of 2007 under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(b), 337-F(iii), 354, 379, 338-B, 148, 149, and 109. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the evidentiary record and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the medical evidence regarding the alleged offence under section 338-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was contradicted by a Medical Board report, rendering the allegation questionable. Furthermore, the Court observed that the case involved a large number of accused persons and pre-existing litigation between the parties. Applying the principle that where the prosecution's case requires further inquiry, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, the Court found that the petitioners' case fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and accordingly granted the bail petition.
- Does a medical report contradicting the prosecution's allegations regarding an offence constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the existence of prior litigation between parties a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 338-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.-Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 148 of 2007, dated 1-5-2007 offence under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(b), 337-F(iii), 354, 379, 338-B, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station, Garh, Tehsil Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. As per contents of the F.I.R., the allegation against petitioner, Allah Ditta is that he inflicted blow from the wrong side of hatchet hitting head of Fazil, injured P.W., whereas no role in the whole F.I.R.
Has been given to the petitioner Noor Muhammad. The injury attributed to petitioner Allah Dita falls within purview of section 337-A(ii) and punishment provided for the same is five years and he is behind the bars since 17-8-2007.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that name of the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Falls within prohibitory clause, coupled with the fact the Medical Board constituted for the re-examination of Mst. Rukhsana Bibi gave the opinion that it could not be relied upon that injured might have aborted after eight weeks. So the allegation levelled was found false in view of the opinion by the Board constituted by Medical Superintendent, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad. Thus the applications of section 338-B, P.P.C. Also requires further inquiry at this stage. There is 13 persons named in the F.I.R. And the litigation is already pending between the parties. So the case of die petitioners fall within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioners are granted post- arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.