NASRULLAH alias NASIR vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Nasrullah alias Nasir, in a case registered under Sections 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 338-F(i), 337-L(ii), 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of a murderous attack involving specific dagger injuries to the complainant's son, one of which resulted in a 'Jurh Jaifah' injury. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations, the medical evidence, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the specific role attributed to him, supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon, brought the offence within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution establishes a prima facie case involving an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years, and the medical evidence supports the specific role attributed to the accused, bail is not warranted.
- Does an offence under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material supported by medical evidence?
- Does the suppression of injuries in an FIR automatically entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 338-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner/Nasrullah alias Nasir is seeking his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 52/11, dated 25.1.2011, registered in Police Station, Saddar, Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, under Sections 337-D, 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 338-F(i), 337-L(ii), 452 148 and 149 PPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner levelled in the FIR is to the effect that he and his co- accused, eight in number, launched a murderous attack on the complainant and his family members, in which he gave three dagger blows to the son of the complainant, namely, Pervez, out of which two hit on his right shoulder while the third landed. on his abdomen, due to which his abdomen ruptured and the intestines appeared Vibe out of the belly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a delay of five days in lodging the FIR, which creates a serous doubt regarding its correctness. He further contended that the alleged occurrence was the result of sudden fight in which the present petitioner also got injured at the hands of the complainant party but his injuries has been suppressed in the FIR. He next contended that the police did not bring on record the cross-version of the petitioner, whereupon he has filed a grivate complaint before the competent forum. He argued that the alleged recovery of knife has been planted by the police. He further argued that the petitioner is entitled to bail as his case falls within the ambit of further enquiry. He lastly, argued that the investigation has been completed and the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Conversely, the learned DPG argued that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing three injuries to the son of the complainant with his dagger, which has been recovered from his possession. He further argued that Injury No, 1 attributed to the petitioner falls within the mischief of Section 337-D, which is punishable with imprisonment for 10 years and attracts the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, he submitted that the reason of delay has been explained in the FIR.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner has been attributed a specific role of causing dagger injuries to son of the complainant, namely, Pervez Akhtar. He has caused 3 dagger injuries on the person of Pervez Akhtar. Injury No, 1, which has been caused at the abdomen of Pervez Akhtar, has resulted in repute of the belly and exposing intestines. In the Medicolegal Report Injury No, 1 has been declared as `Jurh Jaifah' which is an offence under Section 337-D, PPC, entailing punishment of imprisonment upto to 10 years as ta'zir. As such, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner comes within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the crime weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. The prosecution version has, prima facie, supported by the medical evidence. The plea of cross-version of the petitioner has been disbelieved by the police during the investigation. In these circumstances, this Court holds that the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner to prove his guilt. The petitioner has thus, failed to make out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed as being devoid of any force.