RIAZ-UL-HAQ vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-F(vi) and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the specific allegation of inflicting a sota blow on the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the surrounding circumstances of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the offence attributed to the petitioner carried a maximum punishment of seven years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court also considered factors such as previous civil litigation between the closely related parties, the grant of bail to co-accused, the completion of recovery, and the lack of substantial progress in the trial. The court laid down the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose without a progressing trial, bail should be granted.
- Whether an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause warrants the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does the pendency of prior civil litigation between closely related parties influence the decision on bail in criminal proceedings?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the trial shows no substantial progress and continued incarceration would be indefinite?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case arising out of FIR No, 227/2012 dated 12.05.2012 under Section 337-F(vi), 148/149, PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, Khanewal, wherein, precise allegation against the petitioner is of having inflicted sota blow on the left arm , wrist and ankle of the complainant.
2. I have heard and considered the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance.
3. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR and a specific allegation of causing injuries to the complainant/victim is attributed against him, but the fact remains that the offence committed by the petitioner at the most would be covered by Section 337-F(vi), PPC, which offence provides maximum punishment of seven years, as such, is not hit by prohibitory clause. Both the parties i,e, the petitioner and the complainant are closely related and civil litigation amongst them is already pending. Co-accused of the petitioner who were also nominated in the FIR have earlier been enlarged on bail. Allegedly recovery has already been effected from the petitioner, he is behind the bars since 25.6.2012 and challan has been sent to the Court but there is no substantial progress therein. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period and that too without trial. Consequently, this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- with on surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.