Muhammad Nadeem vs The State, Etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 28 registered under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly throwing acid on the complainant's son, causing damage and disfigurement to his eyes and face. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in the F.I.R., his nomination through a supplementary statement, identification via mobile phone, and the gravity of the offense. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for bail, noting the heinous nature of the offense, the medico-legal report confirming acid injuries, and the incriminating statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly dismissed and post-arrest bail refused, laying down the principle that offenses involving acid throwing are heinous crimes that fall within the prohibitory clause and generally disentitle the accused to bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when nominated through a supplementary statement in an acid-throwing case?
- Does the offense of throwing acid fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail to be refused when the medico-legal report corroborates severe injuries attributed to the accused?
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 28, dated 13.01.2012, under Section 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station, Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. Allegation as contained in the F.I.R, is that the petitioner alongwith his co-accused thrown acid on the son of the complainant due to. Which his eyes and face has been damaged and disfigured.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is an unexplained delay of 5 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner is neither named in the F.I.R, nor any recovery has been effected from him; that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement recorded on 04.03.2012 but no source to identify the petitioner has been disclosed; that no identification parade was held to identify the accused persons, hence the petitioner is entitled to the concession of post arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the injured received as many as 7 injuries; that the petitioner was identified on the basis of mobile phone; that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 11.03.2012 and it is too early to grant him bail; that offence under which the petitioner has been involved involves life imprisonment which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Relies on 2004 YLR 704 to contend that according to the story of prosecution offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case; that the petitioner has been found guilty vide case diary No. 6 dated 11.03.2012, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Prima facie, the petitioner has committed heinous offence. Medico-legal report reveals that all the injuries caused on the person of injured are due to throwing of acid. The petitioner was involved in this case on the basis of supplementary statement and on the basis of mobile phone number.
The witnesses through their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, have fully implicated the petitioner in the alleged crime. The crime of throwing acid on the human body has arisen to an alarming level which need to be taken note of. In this view of the matter the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail.
7. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is without merit and is dismissed. Bail after arrest refused.