ANEES-UR-REKVIAN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(ii)(i) and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident involving physical assault and alleged weapon use. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that he was not named in the initial FIR, was later implicated via a supplementary statement alleging an alias, was declared innocent during police investigation, and where the injured complainant failed to appear before a constituted Medical Board for re-examination. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail granted earlier. The court laid down the principles that the evidentiary value of a belated supplementary statement introducing an alias requires trial evaluation, that non-appearance of the injured before a medical board raises adverse presumptions against the prosecution, and that police findings of innocence combined with a lack of initial identification in a night-time occurrence justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial FIR and is subsequently implicated through a supplementary statement?
- What is the evidentiary effect of an injured person failing to appear before a Medical Board for re-examination regarding a disputed injury?
- Does a finding of innocence by the police during investigation constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- How does the absence of a source of identification in a night-time occurrence impact the grant of bail?
- Section 337-A(ii)(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Anees-ur-Rehman, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 39 of 2010, dated 17.02.2010, for the offences under Section 337-A(ii)(i) & 337-L(ii) of PPC, registered at Police Station Old Kotwali, Multan.
2. The prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that on 16.02.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., complainant along with his cousin Hamid Saeed was proceeding on a motorcycle and when they turned their motorcycle from Chongi No, 9 towards Kotla Toway Khan, four persons reached there in a Suzuki Car and stopped them. The accused Sultan and Abdul Hakeem s/o unknown reached there and started inflicting kicks and fist blows on the complainant. Abdul Hakeem inflicted Butt blow with his pistol, which landed on the head of the complainant. Accused Sultan inflicted Hockey blow on the back of chest of the complainant. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the -FIR is that the sister of the complainant was married with brother of Sultan who expelled her from his house after giving her beating nine months back and civil litigation is pending between the parties in this regard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR; that petitioner is not connected with motive part of the prosecution story; that when police wanted to arrest the petitioner in this case, the petitioner applied his bail before arrest before the learned Sessions Judge then the complainant made a supplementary statement before the police that the petitioner (Anees-ur-Rehman) is also known as Abdul Hakeem. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced National Identify Card of the petitioner wherein the name of the petitioner is written only Anees-ur-Rehman; that Abdul Hakeem is alleged to have caused a Butt blow on the head of the complainant which injury was declared as Shuja Madiha but the complainant party in collusion with the Doctor obtained a fabricated medico legal report so, a Medical Board was got constituted on the application of co-accused Sultan for re-examination of injured Muhammad Arif. The Medical Board summoned him on so many dates but the injured did not turn up before the said Medical Board hence, on 31.03.2010 the Medical Board remained unable to re-examine the injured as the injured did not appear before the Board. Certificate in this regard issued by the Medical Board has been placed on the record; that investigation of this case was conducted by Khizar Hayat SI and according to his findings, Anees-ur-Rehman petitioner did not inflict any injury with the Butt of pistol on the head of the complainant and in this way he was declared innocent by the police. It has been lastly argued that as the petitioner is relative of Sultan co-accused and there is family dispute between the parties so the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on the basis of mala fide.
4. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but there after the complainant and witnesses made supplementary statement before the JO that nick name of the petitioner Anees- ur-Rehman is Abdul Hakeem; that the petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the complainant that falls under Section 337-A(ii) of PPC which is a non-bailable offence. Lastly, they have prayed for dismissal of pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioner on the ground that extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be extended to the petitioner inspite of the fact that he is not named in the FIR.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties perused and the record.
6. Name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR by the complainant and witnesses rather one Abdul Hakeem son of unknown is mentioned in the FIR. Perusal of the National Identity Card of Anees-ur-Rehman shows that there is no such nick name as Abdul Hakeem. In their supplementary statements the complainant and witnesses deposed that nick name of Anees-ur- Rehman is Abdul Hakeem. The admissibility of these supplementary statements would be seen during the trial. Injured did not appear before the Medical Board for his reexamination so the presumption regarding the genuineness of the medical certificate would go against the prosecution. The petitioner has joined the investigation and during the investigation Khizar Hayat SI came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not cause any injury with Butt of pistol on the head of the complainant. It is a night occurrence and no source of identification has been furnished by the prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is accepted. Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12.04.2010 is confirmed subject to his 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.