MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs STATE and another
This petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who is accused in an FIR registered under Sections 337-A(2), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for causing injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of recovery of weapons, and the petitioner's clean criminal record. The Court held that the case required further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner, noting that the medical evidence did not fully corroborate the FIR and that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation. The Court emphasized that keeping the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely without trial served no useful purpose. Relying on the principle that the incarceration of an innocent person cannot be adequately repaired by subsequent acquittal, the Court granted the bail, holding that the petitioner had made out a case for further inquiry under the law.
- Does a delay in lodging an FIR, when unexplained, constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the absence of recovery of weapons of offence a relevant factor in granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the fact that an accused is a first-time offender and non-convict weigh in favor of granting bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's medical evidence does not fully corroborate the allegations in the FIR?
- Section 337-A(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 290/2008 dated 04.06.2008 registered at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca under Sections 337-A(2), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 148, 149 PPC at the instance of Abdul Ghafoor, complainant, Respondent No, 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner alongwith other co-accused made sota blows and injured the complainant, hence, this F.I.R.
3. Petitioners applied for his post-arrest bail before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Kehror Pacca, who vide order dated 01.04.2010 refused to grant bail to the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner applied for his post arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, who vide order dated 06.04.2010 also dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is delay of one day in lodging the FIR which is unexplained in the FIR; the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case; no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner; petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder; co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief; offence does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is nominated in the FIR; specific role is attributed to the present petitioner which falls under Section 337A(ii) PPC which is heinous in nature; petitioner remained absconder and is previously convicted and it is also mention that he mis-used the concession of bail; MLC also supports the prosecution story, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The medical evidence does not fully corroborate the injuries mentioned in the FIR under Section 337-A(ii), 337-L(2) PPC. There is delay of one day in lodging the FIR, false implication cannot be ruled out. No recovery of weapons of offence has been effected from the petitioner. Petitioner is previously non-convict and non-record holder. The circumstances of the case require further probe and inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner. Challan of the case has been submitted before the learned trial Court. Petitioner is no more required for further probe or investigation. It will not serve any useful purpose keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as a punishment.
If the petitioner is not allowed bail till conclusion of his trial, ultimately, he is acquitted and prosecution fails to prove its case, there will be no reparation for the period, the petitioner is incarcerated. If prosecution proves its case against the petitioner, he will be convicted. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled as Tariq Bashir vs. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by as mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but, no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any state of the case, albeit his acquittal in the long run."
The circumstances of the case require further probe and investigation into guilt of the petitioner.
Petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry.
8. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, observations made above are tentative in nature, will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial.