Muhammad Waris vs The State And Another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-F(vi), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an alleged assault involving 'dandas' due to a land dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the injuries, the status of the investigation, and the fact that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law. The Lahore High Court held that while the offence carried a potential sentence of seven years, it did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and since the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court granted the bail subject to furnishing sureties, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously within two months. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the court may exercise discretion to grant bail, provided the trial is expedited.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can a court grant bail while simultaneously directing the trial court to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
TARIQ JAVED, J. - The petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 168, dated 5.8.2010, registered under Sections 337-F(vi)/337-L(ii)/148/149, PPC at Police Station Quaidabad, District Khushab.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused while armed with 'dandas' caused injuries on the person of the complainant.
3. It is contended that the petitioner has falsely been involved into the case; that injury alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the punishment for the alleged offence is Arsh and daman and yet he is behind the bar since his arrest; that whole of the family of the petitioner is involved into the case; that the investigation has been completed and no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, hence the case against .The petitioner is one of further enquiry and he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 337-F(vi), PPC, which is punishable with seven years' imprisonment; that the ocular account as narrated in the F.I.R. Is supported by the independent witnesses; that the challan has been submitted and the trial has commenced, however due to the conduct of the petitioner the trial is not proceeding. Hence, he is not entitled to the concession bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It appears that some dispute with regard to the land exists between the parties. The petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the complainant due to the said dispute.. Although the offence allegedly having been committed by the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment seven years yet it does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Since the challan has already been submitted and the trial has commenced, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months. Hence, it would be in the interest of justice to admit the petitioner on bail on his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
7. However, if the trial is delayed due to the conduct of the petitioner, the complainant shall have a right to move for cancellation of the bail after expiry of two months.