SABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of a case registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jhal Chakian District Sargodha. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed a Lalkara and aerial firing without causing any actual injury, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence falls under the prohibitory clause and he has other criminal cases pending. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that whether the petitioner shared a common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter of further inquiry, that section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 provides alternate punishments including Daman with discretionary imprisonment, and that pending cases without conviction do not negate the presumption of innocence. The key principle laid down is that where active injury is absent, the applicability of common intention and the discretionary nature of imprisonment under section 324 warrant further inquiry, tilting the balance in favor of granting bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when attributed only aerial firing and a Lalkara without causing physical injury?
- Does the pendency of multiple criminal cases without any prior conviction justify the refusal of bail?
- Whether the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes a ground for further inquiry at the bail stage?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- Sabir Hussain son of Sajjad Hussain petitioner through this application under section 497 Cr.P.C. Seeks his post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,290 of 2007 dated 14-7-2007 under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Jhal Chakian District Sargodha.
2. Bail had been declined to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge vide their respective orders dated 22-9-2007 and 9-10-2007 hence, this petition.
3. As per F.I.R. Which was lodged on the complaint of Faisal Hayat son of Muhammad Nazir, the allegation against the petitioner is that on the basis of Lalkara raised by the present petitioner, his co-accused Muneer Hussain Shah made a fire shot from his .12 bore gun upon the complainant and in consequence whereof complainant received an injury on his chest. Further the allegation against the petitioner Sabir Hussain was that he also made straight firing at the complainant but luckily he remained safe.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and only aerial firing has been attributed to him. He did not cause any injury to the victim. The basic punishment of the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Is payment of "Daman". The sentence of imprisonment is only discretionary and likely to be awarded only if the behaviour of the accused was unusual, cruel or indicative of misuse of force, authority or occasion. Accused's intention is yet to be determined at the stage of trial. He is behind the bars for the last seven months, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Bail petition has been opposed by the learned D.P.G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of firing on the complainant along with his co-accused. The offence falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Adds the petitioner is also involved in 6/7 other criminal cases, therefore, relief of bail should not be extended in his favour.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner has been attributed the role of aerial firing as well as of rising a Lalkara.
Whether he shared the common intention with his co-accused and is liable for section 34, P.P.C. Is question of further inquiry. Section 324, P.P.C. Provides alternate punishment of payment of "Daman". The sentence of imprisonment is only discretionary and likely to be awarded only if the behaviour of the accused was unusual, cruel or indicative of misuse of force, authority or occasion.
Accused's intention is yet to be determined at the stage of trial. He is behind the bars of the last seven months. Reference can be made to the case of Zulfiqar v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2285. Though the petitioner is involved in other seven criminal cases but the fact remains that he has not earned any conviction. A person is presumed to be innocent unless convicted by a Court of law.
8. For the foregoing reasons, without going deep into the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousands) with one surety in the like-amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
Cited by 1 case
- KHAN SARDAR and another vs THE STATE and another 2009 YLR 1076