MUHAMMAD NAEEM BUTT vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Muhammad Naeem Butt in respect of case FIR No. 391 of 2011 registered under Sections 337-F(i) and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gawalmandi, Lahore, involving allegations of causing injuries to the petitioner's mother and sister. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has established sufficient grounds of mala fides on the part of the complainant—his real mother—to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that an applicant seeking anticipatory bail must demonstrate clear mala fides on the part of the complainant or local police, and that the initiation of a civil suit against parents or the mere assertion of self-inflicted injuries does not establish mala fides by a real mother. The court accordingly dismissed the pre-arrest bail petition and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted, laying down the principle that the existence of family disputes and civil litigation between a child and their parents does not prima facie constitute mala fides for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail.
- Whether institution of a civil suit by a son against his mother and father is sufficient to demonstrate mala fides for the grant of anticipatory bail?
- Does an allegation of self-inflicted injuries against a sister establish mala fides on the part of the complainant mother in a criminal case?
- What is the primary requirement for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Naeem, Butt, petitioner, seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No, 391 of 2011 registered under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Gawalmandi, Lahore.
2. Prosecution version in brief contained in the FIR recorded on the strength of written complaint of Mst. Iqbal Begum is that on 23.6.2011, at about 2.00 p.m. his son Muhammad Naeem Butt (present petitioner) along with his two brothers-in-law and other relatives from in laws entered in the house of complainant and started beating not only the complainant but her younger daughter GuI Amin.
FIR further suggests that present petitioner caused injuries at the hand and arm of Gul Amin, sister of the petitioner.
3. Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case and no such occurrence took place. Suggesting malice on the part of complainant, learned counsel for petitioner maintained that FIR has been recorded as a counter blast against the present petitioner because petitioner has instituted a suit for declaration against the complainant with reference to the house. Further maintained that petitioner was settled in Saudi Arabia who now a days in Pakistan and was called by the complainant herself in order to get repaired the ceiling fan. Learned counsel for petitioner maintained that offence under Section 337-F(i) of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 is ,bailable while offence under Section 337F(iii) of The Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 does not fall within prohibitory clause. Making reference to the medico legal report it was maintained that injuries are self-inflicted. Conversely learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail petition maintained that nothing has been suggested at the instance of petitioner in order to suggest malice on the part of complainant, who is real mother of petitioner. Further maintained that petitioner has instituted civil suit for declaration not arraying only the complainant as defendant but also cited his father as defendant. Maintained that one cannot expect the malice from the real mother. Making reply to the argument regarding self-inflicted injuries, learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that due to grievance of petitioner medical board was constituted and the report of medical officer was endorsed by the medical board constituted at the instance of present petitioner. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General adopted the arguments on similar lines.
4. As the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for anticipatory bail, therefore, the petitioner was obliged and required to show malice either on the part of complainant or local police. Admittedly the complainant is real mother of petitioner and as such prima facie nothing can be suggested in order to demonstrate malice on the part of complainant, which' even otherwise cannot be inferred from the facts of case. Institution of civil suit by the petitioner against the complainant (his mother) as well as father by itself is not sufficient to demonstrate malice on the part of complainant. Argument canvassed at the instance of petitioner that injuries allegedly caused to Mst. Gul Amin are self-inflicted is not sufficient to suggest malice on the part of complainant particularly in view of the report of medical board.
5. Pursuant to above discussion, application for anticipatory bail is rejected. Order granting ad interim anticipatory bail is hereby recalled.