ABDUL WAHID and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by applicants Abdul Wahid and three others seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where the injuries attributed to them either are bailable or fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application, holding that since the injuries do not fall within the prohibitory clause and lack an apparent motive, the applicants deserve the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that offences not falling within the prohibitory clause generally warrant the grant of bail unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when the injuries attributed to them do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the absence of an apparent motive for the offence support the grant of bail?
- Whether bail should be granted when offences charged are mostly bailable?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. ' Prosecution case is that the complainant lodged F.I.R on 11-94006 and these applicants in company with one Juman had attacked on complainant's brother Rehmatullah, nephew Abdul Razzak and his wife Mst. Hubi, when they had gone on land for cutting the Jungle. It is alleged that accused Juman caused hatchet injury to Rehmatullah while applicants Moula Bux and Abdul Wahid caused hatchet injuries to injured Abdul Razzak and Khalid, Sarwar inflicted hatchet injuries to Mst. Hubi.
3. Medical certificate has been placed on record. As per medical certificate, all the injuries shown on the person of both injured Abdul Razzak and Mst. Hubi are bailable except Injury No,1 Ghyar-i-Jaifah Badihah under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C., but that injury too does not fall within prohibitory clause, punishable for three years. No motive of committing of the offence is appearing on the record.
4. ' Learned State counsel also reluctantly has opposed bail application, as the offences are bailable except one.
5. ' In view of above discussion, applicants are allowed to be enlarged on bail, subject to the furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rs, four hundred thousand each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ACHAR Versus State 2018 YLRN 234