MUHAMMAD YASEEN vs THE STATE
The applicant Muhammad Yaseen sought post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 148 of 2008 registered under sections 322, 337-H(i), 336, and 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mehmoodabad, Karachi, after an unauthorized wall he was constructing collapsed, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to another, besides damaging property. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offences and allegations of gross negligence in raising unauthorized construction despite warnings. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant acted in gross violation of safety measures without permission from the concerned authority, leading to fatal and injurious consequences. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, affirming that bail under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code is rightly refused in circumstances involving gross negligence and loss of life.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused facing a charge under section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code arising from the collapse of an unauthorized wall?
- Does raising construction without permission and in disregard of safety warnings constitute gross negligence disentitling an accused to bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground that the wall collapse was allegedly the fault of masons rather than the owner?
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---The applicant Muhammad Yasin is facing trial in F.I.R. No,148/2008 under sections 322, 337-H(i), 336 & 427, P.P.C., lodged in police station Mehmoodabad Jamshed Town, Karachi.
2. Breif facts as per F.I.R. Are that the applicant was constructing his house. The complainant and the other respectable Muhallah people went to the applicant and told that under construction wall has great danger to the roof of complainant. On 1-6-2008 the complainant and others were present, at the house and suddenly at about 10-30 a.m. The wall which was towards the house of complainant fell down on the roof of complainant's house which was covered with cemented sheets with the result thereof the brother of the complainant Muhammad Bux and the mechanic Tanveer were seriously injured. The household articles mentioned in F.I.R. Were smashed.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is innocent and it was the masons fault that wall collapsed and caused the accident, offences are bailable, diyat is prescribed for an offence committed under section 322, P.P.C., in support of his contention the learned counsel for applicant relying upon 1998 M LD 1537, (Muhammad Nadeem v. The State), 2006 PCr.LJ 80 (Ali Dost v. The State).
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail. He has argued that an inspection was conducted by the Investigating Officer which shows that the applicant had acted in gross negligence in the construction of the unauthorized wall and inspite of repeated complaints of the complainant and neighbours continued the construction which fell on the neighbours house killing one person and injuring others, relying on 2005 PCr.LJ 1648 (Atta Muhammad v. The State) and 1994 PCr.LJ 406- (Munir Hussain v. The State) wherein cases falling under section 322, P.P.C. Bail was refused by the Hon'ble High Court.
5. Having heard the arguments and perused the case law cited, in this case. It is, prima facie, established that applicant/ accused was acting in gross violation of the safety measures required for such construction, without any permission from the concerned authority ror raising the unauthorized construction is evident from the report of SHO Mehmoodabad, Police Station where one person was killed and other had received grievous injuries.
6. Under such circumstances and referring to the case law cited by the learned counsel for the State and complainant in which bail was refused under section 322, P.P.C., I find po merit in this bail application which is accordingly rejected. This is with due respect to the case law cited which in my humble opinion is not applicable in view of the above discussion.
7. These are the reasons of the short order passed on 30-9-2008 for rejection of this bail application.