MANZOOR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking post-arrest bail on behalf of petitioners Manzoor Hussain and Noor Muhammad in connection with F.I.R. No. 265 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(v) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the injuries attributed to them, the family dispute forming the motive, and the statutory delay in the commencement and conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the facts and circumstances attract the provisions of further inquiry, making it a fit case for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that prolonged and continuous detention without significant progress in the trial, coupled with minor or simple injuries attributed to peripheral accused who are closely related in a family dispute, constitutes a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail under the category of further inquiry.
- Whether prolonged continuous detention without progress in the trial warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does attribution of simple injuries to accused persons in a family dispute attract the provisions of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Are petitioners entitled to bail when the main fatal injury is not assigned to them and a wide net appears to have been cast to involve family members?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Criminal Miscellaneous.1993/B of 2007 seeking post-arrest bail on behalf of petitioners Manzoor Hussain and Noor Muhammad, arises from case F.I.R. No,265 dated 26-11-2005 registered with Police Station Sarward Shaheed District Muzafargarh for offence under sections 302/324/337-A(ii), F-(v) read with section 34 P. P. C,
2. Complainant Abdul Ghafoor precisely discloses in the F.I.R. That petitioners in furtherance of their common intention, in addition to the murder of Zafar Iqbal also inflicted injuries to him. Motive for the occurrence is that petitioners wanted to marry the daughter of the complainant to their son, but on his refusal to accede to such proposal, they launched the murderous attack.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that no fatal injury whatsoever has been assigned to both the petitioners, and the alleged Sota blow attributed to petitioner Manzoor Hussain on the arm of Zafar Iqbal deceased and that Sota blow ascribed to petitioner Noor Muhammad on the person of complainant, were opined to be simple and minor in nature. That it was a sudden flare up without any element of deliberation and premeditation and that both the petitioners who happen to be the father and uncle of the main accused have been implicated falsely to teach an unforgettable lesson to the whole family. It is alleged that Akram accused was also injured but the prosecution suppressed his injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of bail on the ground that petitioners are categorically named with specific attribution and that sharing of their common intention with the main accused is predominantly manifest. Adds that Sotas have also been recovered at their instance and that the trial has commenced.
5. Admittedly, complainant and both the petitioners are real brothers and the motive clearly speaks of family dispute over an intending marriage, to which complainant was least inclined.
Apparently, a wide net has been thrown to involve even the aged men from the family of the accused said. Another vital aspect of the matter emerging for consideration is that both the petitioners are in continuous detention ever since 12-12-2005 without any progress in the trial and the conclusion thereof is not in sight in the near future notwithstanding issuance of direction by this Court for its expeditious conclusion. And their further detention would be hardly significant for the prosecution case.
6. For the foregoing facts and reasons, I am fully convinced that facts and circumstances of the case attract the provision of further inquiry and it is a fit case for interference and exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, I direct that they shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000/-each with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.