FIDA MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Fida Muhammad, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under an F.I.R. for allegedly inflicting knife injuries on his wife, the complainant Mst. Zahida. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the recovery of the crime weapon, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the accused was specifically named in the F.I.R., the medical report supported the prompt hospital visit and fresh injuries, the crime weapon was recovered, and the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, rendering the cited case law inapplicable. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly nominated in a timely F.I.R. for inflicting injuries with a recovered weapon and the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether an accused nominated in an F.I.R. for causing injuries with a sharp weapon is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the prompt reporting of a crime and immediate medical examination of the injured victim negate arguments regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R. at the bail stage?
- Whether the recovery of the crime weapon from the accused constitutes a sufficient ground to decline post-arrest bail in cases involving hurt offences?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' SALMAN ANSARI, J.---This bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Fida Muhammad against whom in the F.I.R. Allegations are that on 28-9-2008 at about 8-00 p.m.
2. Complainant Mst. Zahida, who was at her sister's house due to a domestic quarrel with her husband Fida Muhammad, when at the above date and time Fida Muhammad came to the ground floor where brother of Mst. Zahida resides, she came down and sat near her husband who wanted to take her home, but on the refusal of the complainant, Mst. Zahida that unless her parents came from the village who will settle the dispute, her husband suddenly became annoyed and took out the Chhuri and inflicted Chhuri injuries on her left thigh, left ear and inside abdomen, and ran away, hence on the statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. Of the complainant/injured the F.I.R. Was registered at Pirabad Police Station by A.S.I. Anwar Ali. The accused was arrested, his bail application was rejected vide order dated 22-12-2008 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi- West.
3. ' It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. Was lodged after the delay of 7 hours, the accused was arrested on 16-11-2008, investigation has been completed, he is no more required for the purpose of investigation, two minor children were left by the complainant at the house of the accused, who will suffer if the accused remains in jail, the recovery has been foisted upon the applicant/accused. Learned counsel has relied upon 2000 M LD 98 Gul Wali v. Qaza Khan and another on the ground that there being counter versions against each other. Premeditation on the part of accused to commit the offence was yet to be determined, bail was allowed, 1984 PCr.LJ 2958 (Lahore) Basharat Ali and 4 others v. The State on the ground that the accused not previous convicts and there was no danger of their abscondence, bail was allowed, 1996 SCM R 979 Mir Ahmed Gul and 2 others v. The State where the offence under section 337-F(ii) P.P.C. Carried punishment of less than ten years and bail was granted.
4. ' Learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed the bail application.
5. Having heard the arguments, the accused named in the F.I.R. Has allegedly caused three incised wounds to Mst. Zahida his wife as shown in the medical report, the victim was taken to the hospital at 12-15 a.m. On 28-9-2008 which shows that there was no delay in taking the injured to the hospital where her statement has been recorded by the Police and the injuries were found to be fresh, the crime weapon has been recovered and the punishment for the offence shows that it falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence with due respect the findings of the case law cited above, in my opinion, do not apply to the facts and circumstances in the present case where the accused was named in the F.I.R. And injuries were found to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon, which has been recovered.
6. I, therefore, at this stage, find no merit in the bail application and reject the same with the direction to the lower Court to expedite the trial of the accused B and examine the complainant and eyewitnesses without any dela.