SAIFULMALOOK and another vs STATE and another
This pre-arrest bail petition was filed by petitioners Saifulmalook and Saeedullah alias Maja seeking confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 145/2010 registered under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), and 34 PPC at Police Station Sadar Mianchannu, District Khanewal. The petitioners were accused of assaulting and causing injuries to the complainant's son with an iron rod following an earlier dispute between the parties. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and in light of Section 337-N(ii) PPC. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The Court relied on Section 337-N(ii) PPC and relevant precedent, holding that none of the alleged offences fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and noting elements of mala fide on the part of the police and complainant as mentioned in the record.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when offences alleged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Does Section 337-N(ii) PPC favor the grant of pre-arrest bail where the accused is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal?
- Whether mala fide on the part of the complainant and police constitutes a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-N(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioners, Saifulmalook and Saeedullah alias Maja (Muhammad Saeed) seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 145 dated 21.4.2010 under Sections 337-L(ii), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i) read with Section 34 PPC registered at Police Station Sadar Mianchannu, District Khanewal.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that on the day of occurrence when Abid Shehzad son of the complainant was on his way home, petitioners along the co-accused assaulted Abid Shehzad.
Saifulmalook accused/petitioner injured Abid Shehzad on his chin and on his left elbow with his iron rod. Saeed Ullah accused/petitioner injured Abid Shehzad on his left shoulder.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the offences mentioned in the FIR fall under Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is further contended that under Section 337- N(ii) in all case of hurt, the punishment would be by way of Arsh and Daman and punishment' by imprisonment would be awarded only in cases where the accused is a previous convict or a hardened desperate criminal. He also contends that case of the petitioner does not fall in category of previous convict. It is further submitted that the petitioners have been joining the investigation; that the petitioners have falsely been involved in the instant case with the malafide of the complainant and the Police as some days prior to the alleged occurrence a fight had taken place between the parties, on which and a written complaint was lodged by the petitioners' side before the Police.
4. The grant of bail is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned law officer. It is contended that both the petitioners have been nominated in the FIR which was recorded promptly; that Abid Shehzad has sustained eight injuries on various parts of his body at the hands of the petitioners; and that recovery is vet to be effected from the petitioners/accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned law officer and have also gone through the record.
6. The malafide on the part of the Police and the complainant finds a mention in the FIR. None of the injuries mentioned in the FIR fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In view of the Provisions of Section 337-N(ii) PPC and the ratio of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner "2007 M LD 1067 Lahore titled (Muhammad Yaqoob and 4 others. Vs. State), I am inclined to confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide order dated 14.7.2010 subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. Petition accepted.