MUHAMMAD ASLAM, etc. vs STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 447 registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(vi), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station 18-Hazari, Jhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of contradictory medical evidence and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the injury attributed to one petitioner was not supported by the medical report and the injury attributed to the other was declared simple, and further noted that co-accused with similar allegations had already been enlarged on bail. The court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to bail. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted where the prosecution case is rendered doubtful by medical evidence and where the rule of consistency applies due to the release of co-accused.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the medical report contradicts the specific injuries attributed to the accused in the FIR?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to petitioners whose co-accused with similar allegations have already been enlarged on bail?
- Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally considered bailable as a matter of rule?
- 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
Petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No, 447 dated 13.10.2007 registered under Sections 337- A(ii)/337-F(vi)/337-L(ii)/148/ 149 PPC, at Police Station 18-Hazari, Tehsil and District Jhang.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners are that they on 13.10.2007 alongwith 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 !eft 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 month and the offences with which they have been charged 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 DPG 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 DPG 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.