MUHAMMAD ALAM vs The STATE and anothers
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 242 of 2011 registered under sections 337A(iii), 337-F(v), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Mochh, District Mianwali, involving allegations of causing a fracture to the nose of an injured prosecution witness with a fist blow. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. and the existence of a cross-version case where both sides sustained injuries. The Lahore High Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the question of who was the aggressor could only be determined by the trial court after recording evidence, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail on the rule of consistency given that co-accused had already been bailed out. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. makes a criminal case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the existence of a counter-version and injuries sustained by both sides warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused in the same crime have already been released on bail?
- Section 337A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337A(1), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant petition, the petitioner has sought for his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,242 of 2011, dated 15-11-2011, offence under sections 337A(iii), 337- F(v), 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Mochh, District Mianwali.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of F.I.R. Is that on 7-11-2011 at 8-00 a.m.
He along with his co-accused after abusing attacked upon the complainant party. The petitioner gave a fist blow on the nose of Saleh Muhammad, injured P.W., which resulted into fracture of the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances. It is argued that there is delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution. Further submits that the complainant party has suppressed the true facts while got registering the instant case against the accused persons as during the incident, the petitioner and his son Mehboob Alam also received injuries during the incident from the complainant side and cross-version under sections 337F(v), 337A(1), 34, P.P.C., was also recorded against the complainant party. It is contended that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor and they were aggressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the accused persons of the F.I.R. As well as counter version have been bailed out except the present petitioner. It is submitted that these facts and circumstances make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Further submits that investigation of the instant case is complete, therefore, the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Contrarily, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is argued that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. With specific allegation of giving fist blow, on the nose of the injured P.W., which has resulted into fracture of nasal bone and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. Record available on file perused.
6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., but the fact also remains that the occurrence in the instant case took place on 7-11-2011 but the matter was reported to the police on 15-11-2011 i,e, with the delay of eight days, which has not been explained by the prosecution. It is also an admitted fact that persons from both sides received injuries and in this regard cross-version under sections 337 F(v), 337 A(1), 34, P.P.C., has also been recorded. At this stage, it cannot be determined that either the petitioner party is the aggressor or the complainant party or this fact can only be resolved by the learned trial court after recording the evidence.
Keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court in the cases of Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1845) and Muhammad Shahzad Siddique v. The State and another (PLD 2009 SCM R 58), the petitioners are also entitled to the relief prayed for.
7. In sequel to above I am inclined that sufficient grounds exist to enlarge the petitioner on post- arrest bail. Resultantly, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.