MUHAMMAD ESSA vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Essa against the denial of pre-arrest bail by the High Court in respect of case F.I.R. No. 301 of 2011 registered under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail was rightly denied where the F.I.R. suffered from an inordinate eight-day unexplained delay, the injured witness failed to appear before the medical board, and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R., coupled with offences falling outside the prohibitory clause and non-appearance before a medical board, prima facie points toward potential malice in implicating an accused, warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether unexplained inordinate delay in lodging an F.I.R. justifies the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of offences within the prohibitory clause favor the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can failure of an injured witness to appear before a medical board be considered when assessing pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The petitioner, Muhammad Essa, is one of the accused in case F.I.R.
No,301 of 2011 lodged by complainant Maqbool Ahmed, under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) read with section 334, P.P.C., at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, Tehsil Arif Wala, District Pakpattan. The F.I.R. Was lodged eight (08) days after the alleged injuries caused to the witness Muhammad Khalid. Even according to the prosecution, there is no explanation for this inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.
Furthermore, even in the impugned order, it has been noted that although a medical board was constituted to examine Muhammad Khalid, he did not appear before it.
2. The offences in the case do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The reason given by the High Court for denying bail to the petitioner is that there is no malice on the part of the complainant, therefore, the concession of pre-arrest bail must be denied to the petitioner.
3. In view of the facts which are noted above and in particular the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R coupled with the nature of injuries, it does, prima facie, appear that the petitioner may possibly have been roped in along with the other accused as a result of malice.
4. In these circumstances, we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. The petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- Muhammad Zameer and another vs The State and another 2022 MLD 1059
- Kamran Khalil vs State and another PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1719
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus State 2017 YLRN 78