SADDAM HUSSAIN vs STATE & another
The petitioner, Saddam Hussain, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR at Police Station Shakargarh, District Narowal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his status as a juvenile, the nature of the injury attributed to him, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the injury attributed to the petitioner was on a non-vital part of the body, fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner was a juvenile whose further incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. The court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the accused is a juvenile whose continued detention serves no investigative purpose, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the juvenile status of an accused provide ground for further inquiry into his guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the injury attributed is on a non-vital part of the body and punishable with a term not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Saddam Hussain, the petitioner, seeks his post-arrest bail through instant petition in case FIR No, 612/2009 dated 4.12.2009 registered under Secuon 324/337-F(ii)/148/149 P.P.C. at Police Station Shakargarh, District Narowal.
The allegation against the petitioner is that on 3.12.2009, at about 6.30 p.m. he while armed with Chhuree alongwith his co-accused made murderous assault upon Sardar Ahmed and during the occurrence he caused injury to Muhammad Jamil on his right buttock.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of 23.30 hours, which creates doubts about veracity of the prosecution story; that the petitioner is a young boy of about 14-years, as such, he is juvenile; that the petitioner has not caused any injury to injured Sardar Ahmed, who suffered serious injures at the hands of other co- accused with whom he has effected a compromise and to that effect he has sworn an affidavit; that the only injury attributed to him is on the person of Muhammad Jameel; that according to the medico legal report the said injury was found to be on his right buttock, which is not a vital part of the body; that the nature of the injury has not been declared, as such, the same falls within the preview of Section 337-F(ii), which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, that the petitioner's case calls for further inquiry into his guilt; that the petitioner has been behind the bars and as such he is no more required to the police for investigation.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab vehemently opposes the instant petition on the grounds that the petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injury to the injured P.W. that during investigation he has been found guilty but learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab concedes the fact that the petitioner is a juvenile.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The bare reading of FIR reveals that only role ascribed to the petitioner is that he has caused injury to Muhammad Jameel, which landed on his right buttock and the same is not vital part of the body. The said injury falls within the preview of Section 337-F(ii) P.P.C., which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioner is juvenile and his participation in the occurrence appears to be with mala fide intention. The petitioner has been behind the bars since his arrest i,e, 8.12.2009. The challan has been submitted in the trial Court, as such, his person is no more required to the police for any further investigation. His further incarceration would tantamount to punishment without trial.
7. In view of the above, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C., as such, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/-(rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.