ZAWAR HUSSAIN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 2/2008 registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 452, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Alipur, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when charged with offences not falling within the prohibitory clause and having spent a considerable period in detention without substantial progress in the trial. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that since most injuries were declared Ghair Jaifa Khafifa, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the prolonged incarceration of the accused without trial progress justified the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that bail is routinely granted in non-prohibitory offences where the accused has suffered long incarceration and trial progress is negligible.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial constitute a ground for granting bail in non-prohibitory offences?
- What is the legal effect on bail when injuries attributed to the accused are classified as Ghair Jaifa Khafifa?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner (Zawar Hussain) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 2/2008 dated 2.1.2008 under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 452, 34 PPC P.S City Alipur, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused went to the house of the complainant and caused injuries to Mst. Amir Mai mother of the complainant with butt of his gun, while standing outside the house of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has been falsely involved in the case and that even otherwise, the injuries sustained by Mst. Amir Mai have been declared Ghair Jaifa Khafifa and only one injury is Jurrah Munaqila. It is lastly argued that petitioner is behind the bars since 16.12.2008 and the offences do not fall within prohibitory clause.
4. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. No doubt the petitioner is nominated in the FIR but except one injury, all the other have been declared Ghair Jaifa Khafifa. The offences with which the petitioner is being charged do not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., whereas, petitioner is languishing in jail since 16.12,2008, without any substantial progress in the trial. In these circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition, as such, petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.