MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Aslam and another in respect of case F.I.R. No. 447 registered under sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(vi)/337-L(ii)/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station 18-Hazari, Tehsil and District Jhang. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the medical discrepancies regarding the injuries attributed to them, the fact that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the principle of consistency arising from the grant of bail to co-accused. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail. The Court held that discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical report regarding the injuries, combined with the fact that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and that co-accused facing similar allegations were already granted bail, warranted the release of the petitioners on the basis of the rule of consistency and further inquiry.
- Does a discrepancy between the medical report and the ocular account regarding an attributed injury make the prosecution case doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused with similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally considered for bail as a matter of routine?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,447 dated 13-10- 2007 registered under sections 337-A(ii)/337-F(vi)/337L(ii)/148/149 P.P.C, at Police Station 18- Hazari, Tehsil and District Jhang.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners are that they on 13-10-2007 along with their accomplices had launched attack on the complainant party and injured them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ijaz petitioner was attributed injury on the left wrist of Ghulam Farid but according to the MLR no injury was found by the doctor on the left wrist of Ghulam Farid. Muhammad Aslam petitioner is alleged to have caused injury on the back side of head of Ghulam Yasin but the same was declared simple by the doctor. He further submits that the petitioners are behind the bars for the last seven months and the offences with which they have been charged to do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He also submits that four co-accused of the present petitioners, namely, Azhar, Tassawar, Ahmad and Jabbar have been granted bail by this Court, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioners should also be released on bail.
4. Learned D.P.G. Has very fairly assisted this Court and submits that four co-accused of the present petitioners, namely, Azhar Tassawar, Ahmad and Jabbar having similar allegations have been enlarged on bail by this Court
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned D.P.G. For the State and have also perused the record. Prima facie it has been established on record that the injury attributed to Ijaz petitioner was not found at the left wrist of Ghulam Farid as per MLR which makes the prosecution case against Ijaz petitioner highly doubtful. As far as case of Muhammad Aslam is concerned, he had caused blunt weapon injury on the back side of head of Ghulam Yasin which has been declared simple by the doctor. Moreover, four co-accused of the present petitioners have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30-1-2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No,46-B/2008, therefore, rule of consistency requires that the present petitioners should also be released on bail.
6 .Under the circumstances, I allow this petition and admit both the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.