NOOR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Noor Muhammad in relation to F.I.R. No. 300 dated 16-4-2009 registered under sections 324, 337-L(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhawana, District Jhang. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite specific allegations of a murderous assault, supporting medical evidence, and the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made no case for bail, noting that specific allegations of causing injuries and outraging the modesty of a woman were supported by medical evidence, and that deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. The court thereby laid down the principle that where prima facie sufficient implicating evidence exists and offences attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, post-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when specific allegations of a murderous assault are supported by medical evidence?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under prima facie incriminating circumstances?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 300, dated 16-4- 2009 registered under sections 324/337-L(ii)/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Bhawana, District Jhang. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, on the instigation of his co-accused, while armed with fire-arm weapon made murderous assault upon Samar Abbas and Mst. Tasleem Bibi, injured P.Ws. And caused them injuries.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contends that this occurrence, as per F.I.R. Took place on 11-4-2009 whereas, the case was registered on 16-4-2009; that in the MLR the name of the father of Mst. Tasleem Bibi is Wali Muhammad and as per that document she was examined through police and the offences to the extent of Mst. Tasleem Bibi are bailable, that the nature of the injuries received by injured namely Samar Abbas has so far not been determined; that there is contradiction in the F.I.R. And MLR because as per F.I.R. He received fire-arm injury on right thigh whereas, as per MLR, the injury is on the left thigh and he was, too, taken to the hospital by the police whereas, as per F.I.R., they were taken to the hospital by their father; that though the injured were examined by the doctor on 11-4-2009 but the case was registered on 16-4-2009 without any explanation; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about six months and no more required for the purposes of investigation.
3. Learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the previous bail petition of behalf of the petitioner was withdrawn on 29-9-2009 after arguing the case at length; that the application moved for the registration of this case clearly contains the fact that as a matter of fact the injured received two fire shots and same fact was incorporated in the challan but inadvertently this fact was not mentioned in the F.I.R; that the petitioner is also responsible for outraging the modesty of a woman; that the challan has been submitted; that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the arguments of the parties.
5. Specific allegation of causing injuries and outraging the modesty of a woman are mentioned against the petitioner. The allegations are duly supported by the medical evidence and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible at bail stage. Prima facie, there is sufficient implicating evidence available against the petitioner. The offence does fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. No ground for grant of bail is made out, therefore, this is dismissed.