Hafiz IQBAL AHMAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns two separate petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by Hafiz Iqbal Ahmad and Ishtiaq Ahmad, who were implicated in an F.I.R. involving allegations of criminal trespass and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the petition of Hafiz Iqbal Ahmad should be dismissed, noting that he was specifically alleged to have caused an injury falling under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was confirmed by a medical board, and that the recovery of the weapon used in the offense was still pending. Conversely, the Court granted bail to Ishtiaq Ahmad, finding that the allegations against him were general, the injuries attributed to him were simple in nature, and the offenses involved were bailable. The judgment reaffirms the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted where specific incriminating allegations and recovery requirements exist, but may be granted where allegations are general and offenses are bailable.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate where the accused is specifically nominated for causing a non-bailable injury and the weapon of offense remains to be recovered?
- Does the existence of general allegations against an accused regarding injuries that are simple in nature entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court grant pre-arrest bail when the medical evidence confirms the specific injury attributed to the accused?
- Section 337-A(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Hafiz Iqbal Ahmad and Ishtiaq Ahmad, petitioners have sought their bail before arrest through two separate bail petitions.. As both petitions are outcome of one and the same F.I.R., so, both petitions are being disposed of through this single order.
2. 2.Petitioners seek their bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,374 of 2010 dated 3-7-2010 for the offences under sections 337-A(II)(1), 337-L(II) and 34 of P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chehliyak, Multan.
3. 3.As per F.I.R., on 1-7-2010 at about 11-00 p.m. Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner armed with pistol whereas Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner armed with Saria along with one unknown person criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant. The allegation against Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner is that he inflicted injury on the backside of head of the complainant with butt blow of his pistol whereas Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner along with one unknown person -inflicted injuries on the shoulder and back of chest of the complainant with Saria blows.
4. 4.Learned counsel for Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner submits that a false case has been registered against the petitioners on the basis of mala fides as there was litigation of complainant with Muhammad Imran, relative of the petitioner regarding the cheques; that offence alleged against Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner does not fall within the purview of prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner submitted an application for re-examination of injured/ complainant and complainant was re-examined by the medical board; that as per report of medical board no duration of injuries had been mentioned, so, the case of petitioner comes within the purview of further inquiry. It has further been contended that the petitioner is the Principal of a private school and is a respectable citizen, so, he has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail.
5. 5.Learned counsel for petitioner appearing on behalf of Ishtiaq Ahmad, submits that there is no specific allegation against Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner of causing injuries on the person of the complainant rather there is allegation that he along with unknown accused person caused injuries on the person of the complainant, that all the injuries attributed to petitioner Ishtiaq Ansari and one unknown person are simple in nature and fall within the ambit of bailable offences; that vicarious liability can not be adjudged at bail stage; that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of mala fides, so, he is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. 6.Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the grounds that both petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R.; that there is specific allegations against both petitioners that they caused injuries on the person of the complainant; that injury attributed to Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner was declared Shuja Madihah by the doctor which comes within the ambit of section 337-A(H) of P.P.C.; that a medical board was constituted on the application submitted by Hafiz Muhammad 'Iqbal, petitioner and the medical board has confirmed the opinion of the doctor, who, conducted medical examination of the complainant; that recovery of pistol is also yet to be effected from the possession of Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner, so; both petitioners are not entitled to the grant of extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail 7.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. 8.The allegation against Hafiz-Muhammad Iqbal petitioner is that he was armed with pistol and he inflicted butt blow on the backside of head of the complainant. Injury attributed to Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal comes within the ambit of section 337-A(ii) of P.P.C. A medical board was also constituted on the application of Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner and according to the opinion of medical board "nothing to disagree with the report of initial medical examiner regarding injury No,1." This injury No,1 was attributed to Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, petitioner. Recovery of pistol is also yet to be recovered from the possession of Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, so, the petition moved by Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, is dismissed.'Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4-10-2010 is re called.
8. 9.So far as Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner is concerned, no specific allegation has been levelled against him. There is general allegation against Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner that he along with one unknown person inflicted injuries with Saria blow on the. person of the complainant. Perusal of medico legal report reveals that injured/complainant received five injuries. Injury No,1 was attributed to co- accused Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal, whereas injuries Nos.2 to 5 attributed to Ishtiaq Ansari and one unknown 'person were simple in nature and these injuries fall within the purview of bailable offences. So, petition of Ishtiaq Ansari, petitioner is accepted and ad interim pre-arrest already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 4-10-2010 is confirmed subject to his fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.