MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR alias MANHAM vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Zubair alias Manham seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 481 of 2011 registered under Sections 324 and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Faqir Wali, District Bahawalnagar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where injuries sustained are not on vital parts, do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and trial has not commenced. The court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that keeping the accused behind bars for an indefinite period without submission of the report under Section 173 serves no useful purpose. Consequently, the petition was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of commencement of trial and failure to submit a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify granting bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2)?
- Whether injuries not situated on vital parts of the body and declared non-dangerous to life take the case out of the prohibitory clause?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through instant petition, petitioner-Muhammad Zubair alias Manham seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 481/2011, dated 24.11.2011 registered under Section 324, 337-F(ii), PPC at Police Station Faqir Wali District Bahawalnagar.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with .30 bore pistol with intent to kill the complainant made murderous assault upon her and fire shots made by him landed on her left and right thighs and left arm and she hardly saved her life.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case due to mala fide of the complainant as well as local police; that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner; that the offence under Section 324, PPC is not made out while the remaining offence under Section 337-F(ii), PPC does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C; that the petitioner, is previously non-convict; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 08.02.2012 without any progress in the trial; hence, he is entitled to concession of bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role; that he has committed heinous offence, hence, he is not entitled to concession as prayed for.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of file reveals that the complainant received four injuries which are neither on vital parts of the body nor dangerous to life and also do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. So far as application of offence under Section 324, PPC is concerned, it would be seen at the time of trial after recording of evidence. Enmity between the parties is admitted as earlier the complainant lodged the FIR against the petitioner side. The petitioner is behind the bars since 08.02.2012 without commencement of trial as report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has not been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction so keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
7. For the reasons enumerated above, as case against the petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. therefore, instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.