FAIZ vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under sections 337-A(ii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the rejection of his bail application by lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific nature of the injuries, the lack of recovery of the weapon, and the applicability of sentencing provisions under the hurt chapter. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the injury sustained fell under section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and that section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 acts as a non-obstante provision overriding other sentencing sections for hurt unless the offender is a habitual or dangerous criminal. The Court further emphasized the principle of consistency, noting that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and observed that the case required further inquiry due to the lack of independent witnesses and the absence of motive in the F.I.R.
- Does Section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 override other sentencing provisions for hurt offences?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the co-accused has already been released?
- Can bail be granted when there is a conflict between ocular and medical evidence and no recovery of the weapon of crime?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' WAQAR AHMED SETH, J.---Faiz, petitioner involved in case F.I.R. No, 601 dated 16-7-2013 registered under sections 337-Aii/34 P.P.C. Of Police Station Mirpur, Abbottabad seeks his release on bail, as his prayer for grant of bail has been turned down by the Courts below.
2. As per contents of F.I.R., the complainant charged the accused petitioner for attempting on his life as well as causing injuries to one Muhammad Saleem with axe blows on his head as a result of which both of them sustained injuries, hence the case was registered against the accused under the relevant sections of law.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. According to the F.I.R., the complainant had directly charged the accused petitioner for inflicting injuries with axe blows to P.W. Muhammad Saleem on his head as a result of which he sustained injuries. Although accused had been assigned a specific role but the injury sustained by the PW/eye-witness Muhammad Saleem is on his head with no bone exposed which falls under section 337-F (ii), P.P.C. (badi'ah), entailing punishment, of payment 'Daman' and imprisonment which might extend to three years as `Taz'ir'---Reading of sections 324, 337-F (ii) and 337-N (2), P.P.C. Showed that the said sections did not supplement each other and rather were at variance from each other---Punishment provided under section 324 P.P.C. Was imprisonment with fine under 'Tazir' and the word "shall" had been used therein, making it mandatory in nature, whereas the punishment provided for the offence of hurt was the payment of arsh or daman as the case might be, which was mandatory and the award of imprisonment of various terms without any fine had been left to the discretion of the court-Provisions of section 337-N(2), P.P.C. Override section 324 P.P.C. And all other sections providing punishment for offences of hurt contained in the chapter---Section 337-N(2), P.P.C. Began with the non obstante clause i,e, "notwithstanding" anything contained in his chapter in all cases of hurt, the court may, which clause gave it overriding effect over all. Other sections providing punishment for hurt, and under said section the offender besides payment of arsh might be awarded punishment of 'Tazir' if he was previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal. Moreover, it is midnight occurrence and no independent witness of the occurrence is available- on record except the statement of the complainant. No weapon of crime has been recovered from the spot. The investigation in the case is almost complete, therefore, the case of the petitioner seems to be one of further inquiry. The co-accused has. Already been released on bail who initially stated the episode, hence the principle of consistency is to be adopted in the matter. There is a sharp conflict in ocular and medical evidence on record, with no repetition of act/fire nor there is any fracture, besides non-mentioning of motive in the F.I.R.
5. Nothing on record suggested that accused was a previous convict, habitual or hardened or dangerous criminal, therefore, the accused petitioner is held to be entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest. The petitioner is no more required by the local police. In these circumstances, prima-facie, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of concession of bail.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing of surety bends in the sum of Rs, Two Lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate concerned.