SAEED and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners, Saeed and Amanat Ali, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 254 of 2007 registered at Police Station Sahianwala, District Faisalabad, under sections 324, 148, 149, and subsequently added section 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific nature and seat of the injuries attributed to them. The Lahore High Court held that both petitioners were attributed firearm injuries on non-vital parts of their bodies, specifically their feet, carrying a punishment of up to five years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry regarding the seat of injuries. The court consequently allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when injuries are attributed to non-vital parts of the body?
- Does the offense under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when injuries are on non-vital parts requiring further inquiry?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- Petitioners (Saeed son of Moonda and Amanat Ali son of Fazal Karim both by caste Hai Kharal) seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,254 of 2007 dated 13-10-2007 offence under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. And later on added 337-F(v), P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sahianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly, the allegation against Saeed, petitioner is that he caused fire-arm injury on the right foot of Monday Khan injured P.W. Whereas Amanat Ali, petitioner caused injury on left foot of Naseer Ahmad son of Mher-i-Khan.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that both the petitioners have been attributed injuries on non-vital parts of the bodies i.e. Feet of the injured P. Ws. The nature of injuries provides punishment of five years which , not fall within prohibition contained in subsection (1) of .Action 497, Cr.P.C. As far as the application of section 324 is concerned, prima facie, that requires further inquiry keeping in view the seat of injuries. My view is fortified by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported as PLD 2004 SC 477.
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,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- PINNU KHAN and anothers vs ISHTIAQ and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 1781
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 545