MUHAMMAD SAEED vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in respect of a criminal case registered under sections 337A(i), 337L(ii), 337F(v), 337F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the primary offense attributed is bailable and the matter involves a cross-version of the incident requiring further inquiry. The court held that since the principal offense attributed under section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code is bailable, the grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the existence of a cross-case registered by the petitioner's party renders the matter one of further inquiry to determine the aggressor, which is best adjudicated during the trial after recording evidence. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application and confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Whether the grant of bail is the rule and refusal an exception in cases involving bailable offenses?
- Does the existence of a cross-case make the matter one of further inquiry regarding which party was the aggressor?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when nominated in the FIR with specific attribution of a bailable offense and cross-versions exist?
- Section 337A(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Learned counsel seeks pre-arrest bail of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No,82 of 2009, dated 10-3-2009, under sections 337A(i), 337L(ii), 337F(v), 337F(i), 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Tarkhani District Faisalabad.
2. The brief allegations against the petitioner according to the contents of the F.I.R. Are that he along with his co-accused caused injuries to his son in prosecution of their common object after framing an unlawful assembly and launching an attack upon him.
3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a false and frivolous case has been registered against the petitioner. It is also stated that the factual position is that the petitioner's party forbade and stopped the complainant party from harvesting the wheat crop of the petitioner. It is further stated that no football ground exists in Chak No,527/G.B. Moreover, the complainant is resident of Chak No,269/R.B. The complainant party being influenced attacked petitioner and also caused injuries to the petitioner and in this regard the petitioner has lodged F.I.R. No,91 of 2009 dated 19-3-2009; that the petitioner could not record the case instantly against the complainant party on account of the complainant party being influential and they manoeuvred the registration of the instant false case against the petitioner. It is further contended that in the medical report of Zahid, it is mentioned that the head injury has been inflicted by the "Dasta" of hatchet while in the F.I.R. It is stated that the blow has been inflicted from the butt of the pistol as such there are contradictions between the two. It is further pointed out that the medical report has further stated that the possibility of fabrication cannot be ruled out. In view of the same the injury can safely be said to have been self-inflicted. It is also stated that there is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R.; the occurrence allegedly took place on 7-3-2009 whereas the F.I.R. Was lodged on 10-3-2009.
4. On the other hand, bail application has vehemently been opposed by the learned A.P.-G.
Contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.1.R. He has been attributed Lalkara as well as a blow by a .30 bore pistol on the head of not Zahid but on the head of Nasir and the offence attributed to him is section 337-A(i), P.P.C.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. The offence attributed to the petitioner is 337-A(i), P.P.C. Which is bailable and in such-like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir and 5 others v.
The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and Muhammad Nadeem v. The State 2007 M LD 926. Moreover, the petitioner's side had also got registered a case F.I.R. No,91 of 2009 according to which it is stated that the complainant party was the aggressor; as such, it is a case of cross-version and the case of the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry, as to which party is an aggressor and which party was aggressed upon it will be seen at the trial after recording of evidence. Reliance is placed on the cases of Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1611, Allah Ditta and 2 others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 216 and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others 1996 SCM R 1845.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this bail application is accepted. Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 14-4-2009 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.