MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 452, 337-F(i), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of assault. The petitioner contended that the case was a result of mala fide intentions arising from a civil dispute where a status quo order had been recalled shortly before the incident. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the offence under Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 had been deleted during the investigation, and the injury attributed to him was reclassified under Section 337-L(ii), which is a bailable offence. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted the civil litigation background, the deletion of the non-bailable offence, and the fact that the co-accused had been granted bail. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner had established a case for relief, subject to the furnishing of fresh surety bonds.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the non-bailable offences originally charged have been deleted during investigation?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role entitle the petitioner to bail on the principle of consistency?
- Is the existence of a prior civil dispute between the parties a relevant factor for considering the mala fide nature of a criminal case in bail proceedings?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,419 of 2009, dated 22- 6-2009, registered under sections 452, 337-F(i), 147, 149, P.P.C., at the Police Station Saddar Sialkot with the allegation that the petitioner made a "Kassi" blow on the complainant's wife of Mst. Bushra Bibi.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case with the mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant and the local police.
It is further contended that present case a civil suit was filed by the complainant in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Atif Saeed learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, and the status quo order was recalled on 15-6- 20009. It is further contended that during the police investigation only bricks were used by both the parties. It is added that his co-accused has been granted bail with similar role by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 30-6-2009. Further offence 452, P.P.C. Has been deleted during the investigation and according to the Medical Board the injury 337-F was found to be one under section 337-L(ii) which is bailable offence.
3. The learned DPG has vehemently opposed the bail petitioner of the petitioner on the ground the case of his co-accused namely Muhammad Akram who has granted bail lay the learned Additional Sessions Judge is distinguishable therefore he is not entitled to the bail.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
5. In the present case a civil suit was filed by the complainant in which status quo order was recalled on 15-6-2009. During the police investigation only bricks were used by both the parties.
Co-accused of the petitioner has also been granted bail with similar role by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Section 452, P.P.C. Has been deleted during the investigation. In these circumstances the petitioner has made omit a case for confirmation of bail granted to him on 12- 10-2009 which is confirmed subject to his fresh surety bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.