NAVEED MASIH vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition is directed against the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Naveed Masih, in a case registered under sections 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delayed F.I.R., the tentative assessment of the injury attributed to a non-vital part of the body, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., the tentative classification of the offence as a hurt case rather than attempted murder, the attribution of a single injury on a non-vital part without repetition, and the fact that the petitioner had been behind bars for over six months without trial progress brought his case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that prolonged incarceration without trial and tentative assessment of non-prohibitory offences warrant bail.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. raise a presumption of false involvement for the purpose of bail?
- Whether attribution of a single injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition attracts the offence of attempted murder under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 tentatively?
- Can prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ALTAF IBRAHIM QURESHI, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Naveed Masih, seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No,258, dated 23-8-2010, registered with Police Station Ladheywala Warraich, District Gujranwala, under sections 324, 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution story, as per F.I.R., is that the petitioner, armed with pistol, along with his three co- accused and two unknown persons, all armed with sotas, launched a criminal assault on complainant's elder brothel: namely Sajjad Ahmad. Present petitioner fired a shot with his pistol, hitting the leg of complainant's brother. The other co-accused gave beatings with their Dandas to Sajjad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was got registered with the delay of 8 days, which is unexplained; that all the nominated accused except the present petitioner have been granted post-arrest bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the present petitioner also surrendered himself before the police; that the ingredients of section 324, P.P.C. are not attracted in the present case whereas the remaining offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from that of his co-accused, as they were armed with Dandas.
5. I have heard the arguments arid perused the record.
6. The occurrence took place on 15-8-2010 at 11 a.m. but the F.I.R. was lodged on 23-8-2010 (time not mentioned), i.e, with the delay of eight days, for which no plausible explanation has been given in the F.I.R. Such delay in lodging the F.I.R. though is not fatal but gives rise to presumption of having the accused falsely involved. The alleged assault made, with the purpose of committing murder and its knowledge, attracting the provisions of section 324, P.P.C., is a question, which can only be determined after recording of evidence by the learned trial Court. Tentatively, it seems only a hurt case, falling under section 337-F(v), P.P.C., entailing five years imprisonment. Only one injury on non-vital part of the body is attributed. and there is no allegation of its repetition. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and he is no more required for further investigation. To keep the petitioner in Jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose, particularly, when no evidence has so far been recorded by the learned trial Court.
7. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, he is accepted to 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 the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ABD-UR-RAZAK alias KARO vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1656