JAWAD HASSAN and 3 otherss vs S.H.O. POLICE STATION KOT ADDU, DISTRICT
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by four accused individuals in connection with F.I.R. No. 145 of 2008, registered under sections 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the findings of the investigation. The Court held that while the application for pre-arrest bail for petitioner No. 4, Muhammad Akhtar, should be dismissed due to his established presence at the scene and the severity of the injury attributed to him, the application for petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 should be allowed. The Court reasoned that the injuries attributed to petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were simple in nature, located on non-vital parts of the body, and that the complainant failed to appear for a medical re-examination ordered by the Magistrate. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, emphasizing that incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the injuries attributed to the accused are simple and located on non-vital parts of the body?
- Does the failure of a complainant to appear for a court-ordered medical re-examination influence the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Should pre-arrest bail be denied when the investigation establishes the presence of the accused at the scene and links them to a specific injury supported by medical reports?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,145 of 2008 dated 12-5-2008 under sections 337-A(ii)/ 148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Kot Addu District Muzaffargarh.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case; that a medical evidence does not lend corroboration of the prosecution story; that petitioners also moved an application to the concerned S.H.O. For a registration of the case but instead the case was registered on the complaint of the complainant; that medical certificates have been falsely procured by the complainant; that during the course of investigation Muhammad Akhtar, petitioner No,4 was although found present at the spot but apprehended that the injuries attributed to petitioners Nos.1 to 3 are simple in nature.
3. On the other hand learned A.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel, for the complainant have opposed this bail application.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. So as Muhammad Akhtar, petitioner No,4 is concerned his presence at the spot is established during the investigation. The allegation against him is of inflicting pistol blow on the head of the complainant, which is supported by the medical report, according to which, there is a lacerated wound 4.8 c.m. Into 1 c.m. On the skull bone exposed. This being the situation recovery is to be effected from Muhammad Akhtar, petitioner No,4. As such no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the extent of Muhammad Akhtar, petitioner No,4 is made out, as such this application to his extent is dismissed.
6. As regards petitioners Nos.1 to 3 although they are also nominated in the F.I.R. But injuries attributed to them are simple in nature and according to the medical report there is only 1.5 c.m.
Into 0.6 c.m. And laceration. Furthermore, the injuries attributed to these petitioners are on non-vital part of the body. In these circumstances sending the petitioner behind the bars could not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution specially when it has come on record that despite constitution of medical board on the order of Magistrate, the injured did not appear for re- examination. In view of the above circumstances this bail application to the extent of petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to them is confirmed on their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.