MUHAMMAD SALEEM & 5 others vs STATE & another
This criminal petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in relation to F.I.R. No. 425, registered for offences under Sections 452, 354, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, armed with weapons, trespassed into the complainant's house and assaulted his family members. The petitioners contended that the case was falsely registered due to a land inheritance dispute, highlighting a significant 27-day delay in the F.I.R.'s registration and the absence of any medico-legal certificates to substantiate the alleged injuries. The Court observed that the police investigation suggested no weapons were used and that the incident stemmed from a dispute over wheat distribution. Finding that the applicability of Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further investigation and noting the lack of medical evidence, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that incarceration at the pre-trial stage would serve no useful purpose given the evidentiary uncertainties.
- Does an unexplained delay of 27 days in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution lacks medico-legal evidence to support allegations of physical assault?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the police investigation contradicts the initial allegations regarding the use of weapons?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 451, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 425 dated 25.7.2011 for the offences under Sections 452/354/ 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar, Vehari.
2. Prosecution story as narrated in F.I.R is that the petitioners while armed with pistols and Sotas entered into the house of the complainant and gave beating to daughters and sister of the complainant and as such the case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is dispute between the parties regarding inheritance of land; that both the parties are closely related and case has falsely been registered; that no medico legal certificate of any person is available on record; that there is nothing on record to indicate that any one was injured in this occurrence; that there is unexplained delay of 27-days in lodging of F.I.R. which makes the whole prosecution case highly doubtful; that during investigation it transpired that dispute arose regarding distribution of wheat and no weapon was used and. no one was injured; that only Section 452, P.P.C. is non-bailable and remaining Sections are bailable that during investigation it transpired that no weapon was used so matter at the most falls under Section 451, P.P.C. which is bailable and as such the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant states that the complainant is present in Court and states that she was medically examined but learned DPG admits that no medico legal report is available on record; that offence under Section 452, P.P.C. is made out and as such the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, case was registered after unexplained delay of twenty seven days and there is no medico legal report available on record. Police has come to the conclusion at one stage that no weapon was used and occurrence took place due to distribution of wheat. Involvement of the petitioners under Section 452 P.P.C. needs further probe. No useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioners behind the bars at this stage. Matter regarding involvement of the petitioners as to what extent they are responsible can only be determined after recording of evidence. In these circumstances, case of the petitioners remains that of further inquiry.
Consequently, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest already granted to the petitioners stands confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand rupees) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.