NAZAR HUSSAIN vs STATE etc
The petitioner, Nazar Hussain, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 113/08 registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being specifically named in the FIR with the attribution of a fatal head injury to the deceased and the case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was the principal accused, was directly connected to the fatal injury through prima facie available evidence, and that the offense fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that bail will generally be refused to an accused who is nominated in the FIR with a specific fatal role that attracts the prohibitory clause, where prima facie evidence connects them to the crime.
- Is an accused named in the FIR with a specific fatal injury entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Does a delay in FIR registration and discrepancies in medical reports automatically warrant the grant of post-arrest bail for a principal accused?
- What is the effect of prima facie evidence connecting an accused to a murder on a petition for post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(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
Nazar Hussain son of Allah Ditta petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 113/08 dated 5.4.2008 for offences u/Ss. 302/324/337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Jatoi District Muzafargarh.
2. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he inflicted hatchet blow on he front side of head of Ghulam Qasim deceased.
3. It is, inter-alia contended that deceased remained admitted in the hospital in injured condition for six days but his statement was not recorded; that injury caused to the deceased are self- inflicted; that 13 co accused out of 15 accused have been allowed bail either by the learned Additional Sessions Judge or by this Court; that occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 4.30 p.m whereas the FIR was lodged with delay of about three days for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution; that MLC is stated to have been prepared two hours prior to the registration of FIR; that in the FIR five injured PWs have been mentioned whereas medical report on record qua 7 injured have been placed; that I.0 did not reduce into writing even one case diary in his own hand; that petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year; that trial is at initial stage and conclusion thereof is not even insligh.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General with vehemence submits that petitioner is principal accused, he repeated the blows with hatchet. First injury was caused to deceased Ghulam Qasim on his head and second blow hit Ashiq Hussain complainant; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is named in the FIR with attribution of fatal injury to the deceased. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Sufficient evidence at least prima facie connecting the petitioner with the offence alleged against is available on record. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this petition which is hereby dismissed.