NOOR MUHAMMAD- vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Noor Muhammad seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 300 registered under Sections 324, 337-L(ii), 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhawana, District Jhang, concerning a murderous assault on injured prosecution witnesses. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the specific allegations, medical evidence, and applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that specific allegations of causing injuries and outraging the modesty of a woman are supported by medical evidence, and that contentions requiring deeper appreciation of evidence are not permissible at the bail stage. The key principle laid down is that where prima facie sufficient implicating evidence exists and the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail will be refused.
- Whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle the accused to bail when prima facie evidence is available?
- Are contradictions between the First Information Report and medical reports ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- 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
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 300 dated 16.04.2009 registered under Sections 324/ 337-L(ii)/148/149/109, PPC 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 PWs and caused them injuries.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contends that this occurrence, as per FIR took place on 11.04.2009 whereas, the case was registered on 16.04.2009; 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 FIR. and MLR because as per FIR he received fire-arm injury on right thigh whereas, as per MLR, the injury in on the left thigh and he was, too, taken to the hospital by the police whereas, as per FIR, they were taken to the hospital by their father; that though the injured were examined by the doctor on 11.04.2009 but the case was registered on 16.04.2009 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 Addl. Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the previous bail petition on behalf of the petitioner was withdrawn on 29.9.2009 after arguing the ease 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 FIR; 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 is 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.