QAMAR ABBAS vs STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under Sections 337-A(ii) and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing injuries to the complainant using brick-stones. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delayed FIR, discrepancies between the FIR and the medical report, and whether the alleged offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the five-day delay in lodging the FIR, the lack of corroborating evidence regarding the broken teeth, and the contradiction between the FIR and the medical report warranted the grant of bail. The Court emphasized that the offence under Section 337-A(ii) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petitioner was admitted to bail, noting that his continued detention served no purpose as the trial was not imminent.
- Does an offence under Section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the legal effect of a significant delay in lodging an FIR on a bail application?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner-Qamar Abbas, seeks his post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 101, dated 10.05.2011, registered with Police Station Kot Sabzal, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan, under Sections 337-A(ii), 336, P.P.C.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 05.05.2011 at 12:00 p.m., he caused injuries to the complainant with pieces of bricks.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any wound on the face, teeth could not be broken especially when the complainant is 60 years old, hence, the offence u/S. 336. P.P.C. is not made-out. Further submits that Section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is next contended that the story of the FIR and the MLC qua injuries contradicts each other, making-out a case of further inquiry. It is lastly contended that the alleged recovery of three brick-stones are not blood stained, hence, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the present petitioner is the only accused, who is nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing injuries to the complainant, which resulted in removal of two teeth bringing his case within the ambit of Section 497(1), P.P.C., as the offence attracts the provisions of Section 336, P.P.C., which is punishable with ten years imprisonment. Above all, the petitioner has never challenged the attraction of Section 336, P.P.C. for constitution of Medical Board.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The occurrence took place on 05.05.2011 at 12 noon but the FIR was lodged on 10.05.2011 at 9:20 a.m., i,e, with the delay of five days, for which no plausible explanation has been given in the FIR.
Such delay in lodging the FIR though is not fatal but gives rise to presumption of having the accused falsely involved. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. and later-on Section 336, P.P.C. was added, the attraction of which would be seen at the time of trial after recording of evidence by the learned trial, as according to FIR, cut on the lower lip and three teeth were reported as broken but the MLC speaks otherwise. The use of brick-stones in the occurrence, in itself, negates the intention of the petitioner to cause grievous injuries. The offence u/S. 337-A(ii), P.P.C. i,e, Shajjah-i-mudihah is punishable with five year imprisonment, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. I have noticed that at no stage, the broken teeth were either taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation or produced anywhere to corroborate the factum of break of teeth. Petitioner is behind the bars since 11.05.2011 and is no more required for any purpose. Further detention of the petitioner in Jail, especially when the trial is not in sight, would be of no avail to the prosecution.
7. In view of the above, case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this application is, accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.