MUHAMMAD ARIF vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Arif, in relation to F.I.R. No. 286 registered under Sections 337-F(iv) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged injury, the failure of the complainant to appear before a Medical Board for re-examination, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body, the trial had not yet commenced despite the submission of the challan, and the complainant's failure to cooperate with the Medical Board created a case of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that keeping an accused in jail pending trial, when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, effectively amounts to punishment without trial.
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally entitle an accused to bail?
- Can the failure of an injured complainant to appear before a Medical Board for re-examination constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the detention of an accused in jail pending the commencement of a trial considered punishment without trial?
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,286, registered with Police Station Gaggo, Distract Vehari on 3-6-2008 for offences under sections 337-F (iv)/34, P.P.C., mainly on the ground that the injured Mukhtar Ahmad despite summoning by the Medical Board constituted to reexamine the injury has failed to appear with mala fide because the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case whereas his co-accused Shahid has already been enlarged on bail; that the role of the petitioner mentioned in the F.I.R. Was that of causing hatchet blow on the right hand of the victim which is on non-vital part of the body; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months while the challan has been submitted before the trial Court and no purpose would be served to the prosecution to keep the petitioner in jail.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed all the grounds by arguing that the offence in which the petitioner charged is punishable up to five years; that recovery has been effected; that the trial is in progress and that the petitioner has been held guilty, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.
3. Heard. Since the injured Mukhatar Ahmad despite notices issued by the Medical Board has failed to appear for re- examination; the petitioner throughout claimed that the injury inflicted is caused by some other manner, however, it is on the non-vital part of the body. The petitioner is behind the bars for three months while the challan is submitted. Statedly, no progress rather trial has as yet not commenced, the petitioner till finally of trial if kept in jail would amount to punishment without trial. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr .P. C . The attending circumstances as put forth makes it a case of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to A furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHARAFAT ALI Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 141
- MUHAMMAD AMEEN vs The STATE 2014 P Cr. L J 1719