TARIQ SAJJAD alias TAHIR vs STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 74 registered under Sections 337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(v)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City, Burewala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and his participation in the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the injury falling under Section 337-A(ii) was attributed to a co-accused, while other injuries were bailable, and noting that the petitioner had joined the investigation and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted, no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where offences are bailable or not falling within prohibitory clauses, and where the accused has fully joined the investigation and challan has been submitted.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the offences involved are bailable or carry lesser penalties?
- Does joining the investigation and submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when principal injury is attributed to a co-accused?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 74, registered with Police Station City, Burewala on 12.2.2007 for an offence under Sections 337-A (i) (ii)/337-F(v)/34, PPC.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR the facts of the case are that on 6.2.2007 the complainant alongwith one Abdul Kharim were standing at Chungi No, 5 in front of tractor workshop of Yasin Arain and were about to proceed to Police Post of Chak 100 Bridge in connection with an investigation of case FIR No, 32/07 which has also got registered by the present complainant when all of a sudden the present petitioner alongwith one Nawab came there on a motor-cycle armed with pistols and started beatings to the complainant and Shahid. The role attributed to the present petitioner is that he gave four blows with the butt of his pistols on the ribs of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under Section 337-A(ii), PPC and the injury on the head of Muhammad Akram has been attributed to his co-accused namely Nawab and the other injuries fall under Sections 337- A(i)/337-F-(i), PPC which are bailable. Further contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.
During the investigation it has been found that the petitioner was not armed with any pistol at the time of incident.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is a criminal minded as he is involved in five criminal cases of heinous nature and he does not deserve the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, therefore, the present bail application should be dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also opposed the bail application by adopting the same line of argument.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Only one injury falls under Section 337-A(ii), PPC which is attributed to the co-accused namely Nawab and the other injuries in the instant case full under Sections 337-A(q/337-F(i), PPC which are bailable.
Even otherwise, the petitioner has joined the investigation and report under Sections 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted before the trial Court and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner to jail. In the circumstances, the instant petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.