YAQOOB vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 207 dated 28-4-2007 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Harrapa. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the attribution and the circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the sole allegation was of inflicting a single firearm injury to an injured person without repetition, making the sharing of a common intention a matter for trial. Furthermore, discrepancies between the F.I.R. and a subsequently filed private complaint, the fact that bulk of the twenty-three accused were declared innocent during investigation or granted bail, and the statutory delay in the trial rendered the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court allowed the bail application subject to surety bonds.
- Whether the lack of repetition of a firearm injury makes the question of common intention one for further inquiry warranting post-arrest bail?
- Does a discrepancy between an F.I.R. and a subsequent private complaint render a criminal case one of further inquiry under bail adjudication?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'SAGHIR AHMAD, J.---Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,207 dated 28-4-2007 under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Harrapa.
2. I have considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance.
3. It is admitted fact that the sole allegation against the petitioner is that of having inflicting a similar fire arm injury on Mst. Bakhat Mai, injured and no other injury either to the deceased or any other person is attributed to the petitioner. There is also no repetition of the fire, therefore, sharing common intention in the commission of the offence is a question which will be determined after trial. Apart from that the version set in the F.I.R. Has also been deviated by the complainant in a private complaint got lodged by him, and as to which orie is true, also makes the case against the petitioner open to further inquiry. In all twenty three persons were accused in the F.I.R. And bulk of them have been declared innocent during investigation several of them have been admitted to bail by this Court as well as by the learned trial Court. The petitioner is behind the bars for quite some time with no substantial progress in the trial. In the above situation, further detention of the petitioner in jail will not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. In the above situation, case against the petitioner has become one of further inquiry. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
4. Needless to add that whatever has been observed above is purely tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court while finally deciding the trial of the case.