TANVIR alias TANOO vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application was filed before the Lahore High Court by the petitioner, who was accused alongside six others of house trespass, attempted murder, and causing hurt under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a Sota (wooden stick), and his co-accused mercilessly beat the complainant, causing twelve blunt weapon injuries across his body, motivated by a prior dispute over a buffalo theft. The petitioner argued that the injuries attributed to him were simple, that the recovery of the weapon was complete, and that the case required further inquiry. The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the petitioner was named in the First Information Report (FIR) and had actively participated in a coordinated, merciless assault. The Court laid down the principle that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail is not a matter of right and can be denied where there is active participation in a brutal, coordinated assault.
- Whether an accused is automatically entitled to bail if the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied to an accused who is attributed simple injuries if they acted in prosecution of a common object to mercilessly beat a victim?
- Does the completion of weapon recovery and the fact that the accused is in judicial lock-up automatically justify the grant of post-arrest bail in a case of coordinated assault?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.--After rejection of post-arrest bail application of the petitioner by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian vide order, dated 7-3-2008, the petitioner has filed this after arrest bail application in this Court in case F.I.R. No,436 of 2007, dated 18-7-2007 under sections 324, 452, 337-F(v), 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Jalalpur Bhattian District Hafizabad, wherein it is alleged that petitioner was armed with Sota along with six others who were variously armed with pistol etc., and then trespassed into the house of complainant at about 5-00 p.m. On 18-7-2007 and Munir Ahmad co-accused fired with his .30 bore pistol on the complainant which passed through the legs of the complainant and hit the wall and when the complainant tried to run away he was caught and dragged by the petitioner and co- accused and then all of them gave him beating mercilessly with Sotas, butt of pistol on his face, head, legs, arms and flanks etc. Etc., and caused him multiple lacerated injuries due to previous grudge of theft of the buffalo of the complainant by the petitioner and co-accused.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is attributed Danda blows on the right left of the Complainant and injuries are simple in nature and submitted that case against the petitioner thus falls for Airther inquiry in sharing grievous injuries on the complainant by the co- accused including injuries on his face and head. It is submitted that petitioner is no more required by the police, Danda has already been recovered from him and he is in judicial lock-up for the last several months, thus he is entitled to bail.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that the complainant has been mercilessly beaten with butt of the pistol, Dandas and Sotas resulting in at least 12 blunt weapon injuries on all over his body including head, mouth, face and some of the injuries are grievous in nature and there is strong motive also available against the present petitioner on record, therefore, he is not entitled to bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused. There are 12 blunt weapon injuries on the person of complainant, which are contusions and lacerations. A perusal of the F.I.R. Itself shows that petitioner and co-accused simultaneously gave beating to the complainant with their respective weapons due to the fact that complainant had got a case registered for theft of his buffalo at the instance of present petitioner and others. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And merely because the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, petitioner is not entitled to bail as the petitioner and co- accused gave merciless beating to the complainant and caused multiple wounds on all over his body including face and head. Petition is without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.