MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others vs THE STATE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under multiple sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when general allegations without specific injury are attributed to them in a case involving counter-versions and a free fight. The Supreme Court held that where a case presents multiple conflicting versions indicative of a free fight and no specific injuries are attributed to the accused, the matter falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when investigation is complete and physical custody is no longer required. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that generalized allegations in a free fight scenario without specific attribution of injuries, coupled with the finalization of the investigation, warrant the grant of bail for further inquiry.
- Does a case involving multiple conflicting versions and a free fight warrant post-arrest bail when no specific injuries are attributed to the accused?
- Is post-arrest bail justified under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the investigation has been finalized and physical custody is no longer required?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Razzaq and Abdul Khaliq petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the order dated 25-3-2011 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 850-B of 2011 whereby post-arrest bail was refused to the petitioners in case F.I.R. No, 463 registered at Police Station Barki, District Lahore on 6-9-2010 in respect of offences under sections 302/354/452/506/337-F(v) / 337-A(i) / 337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/324/ 147/148, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
3. We have observed that no specific injury had been attributed to the petitioners in the F.I.R. And the allegations levelled against them were couched in generalized and collective terms. The criminal case in hand has three versions, one advanced by the local police, another advanced by the petitioners' party and yet another put forward by the party adverse to the petitioners. Six persons belonging to the petitioners' party and seven persons belonging to the party adverse to the petitioners had received injuries in the incident in issue and each of the three versions advanced in this case contains a different story. A perusal of the F.I.R. Prima fade creates an irresistible impression that the case in hand was a case of a free fight entailing individual liability and if no specific injury stands attributed to any of the petitioners then it is yet to be seen as to what individual liability they can be saddled with. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, thus; physical custody of the petitioners is not required at this stage for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances of this case mentioned above we have found that the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. For what has been discussed above the delay in filing of this petition is condoned, this petition is accepted and converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, resultantly , the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDULLAH SHAH Versus State 2018 YLRN 107