MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Afzal in case FIR No. 144/2012 registered under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the statutory punishment for the charged offence, the period already spent behind bars without commencement of trial, and the completion of investigation. The Lahore High Court held that since the offence attributed under Section 337-F(iii) carries a maximum sentence of three years, making bail the rule and refusal the exception, and given the protracted incarceration without any prosecution witnesses being examined, the petitioner's continued detention serves no useful purpose. The court established the principle that protracted pretrial detention coupled with an offence carrying a short maximum sentence warrants the grant of post-arrest bail, especially when the investigation is complete and no recovery was effected from the accused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offence carries a maximum sentence of three years and the trial has not commenced after significant incarceration?
- Does the absence of any recovery from the accused during investigation justify the grant of bail in a case involving firearm injuries?
- Whether the rule of granting bail where the statutory punishment is less than the threshold of prohibitory clauses applies when the petitioner has spent over nine months behind bars without progress in the trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This is the 2nd petition on behalf of Muhammad Afzal petitioner seeking his release on bail in case FIR No, 144/2012 dated 25.03.2012 dated 25.03.2012 for the offence under Sections 324/337-F (iii)/34, PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan. His earlier petition seeking the same relief (Crl.Misc.No, 7996-B of 2012) was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.07.2012.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the FIR is that the fires made by him with .12 bore gun hit the injured on his belly as well as right arm.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case due to mala fide of the complainant in connivance with the local police; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than nine months and his trial has not been concluded so far; that during course of investigation it transpired that the petitioner was empty handed and nothing was recovered from the petitioner and that the offence attributed to the petitioner falls under Section 337-F (iii), PPC and the maximum sentence for the said offence is three years and as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 10.04.2012 and specific role of causing fire arm injuries is attributed to the petitioner and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR with the role of petitioner comes under the category of `ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah' falling under Section 337-F (iii) and the maximum sentence of the said offence is three years and the grant of bail in such like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception. The involvement of the petitioner qua his intention to kill the injured is left for the trial Court to decide after recording of evidence. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than nine months and not a statement of single witness has been recorded so far by the learned trial Court.
During investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner; investigation to his extent is complete and he is no more required for the said purpose. So, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am persuaded to allow this petition.
Consequently, this 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/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.