ABDUL WAHEED vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 286 dated 07.03.2014 registered under Sections 337-F(iii), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kahna, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the duration of his incarceration. The court held that since the injuries on the feet fell under Section 337-F(iii) carrying a maximum punishment of three years—thus not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—and the applicability of Section 324 required further determination by the trial court, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had been behind bars since 12.09.2014 with the trial not in sight, the continued incarceration of the petitioner was unjustified. The court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the conclusion of the trial is not in sight, keeping an accused in custody for an indefinite period is unwarranted, and bail should be granted.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an injury on a non-vital part of the body exclude the prima facie application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- Is indefinite incarceration justified when the challan has been submitted but the conclusion of the trial is not in sight?
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abdul Waheed, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 286 dated 07.03.2014, for offences under Sections 337-F(iii)/324/34, PPC, registered at Police Station Kahna, Lahore.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the FIR is that on 06.03.2014 at about 10:30 a.m, the petitioner along wish co-accused while armed with fire-arm made straight firing on the son of the complainant with intent to kill him and as a result thereof he received injuries.
3. Hoard. Record perused.
4. The injuries allegedly caused by the present petitioner are available only on the right and left feet as reflected in the medico legal report and as per opinion of the Medical Officer, injuries constitute the offence under Section 337-F(iii), PPC carrying maximum punishment of three years that does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And keeping in view the seat of injury, applicability of Section 324, PPC is to be looked in by the learned trial Court. Recovery has already been effected. Petitioner is behind the bars since 12.09 2014 and no more required for investigation purposes, Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court but conclusion of trial is not in sight. In this view of the matter, keeping the petitioner behind the bar for indefinite period is not justified. In the case of Muhammad Umar v. The State and another (PLD 2004 SC 477), in a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed as unde'".
" We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record particularly the medical certificate. A perusal whereof indicates that allegedly the petitioner fired upon the outer side of, the right leg's middle part of the injured Shahid Iqbal, therefore, prima facie, we are of the opinion that he had no intention to fire upon the vital part of the injured Shahid Iqbal for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Be that as it may, now the challan has been submitted, trial has commenced, petitioner is in custody with effect from the date of his arrest and is no more required for the purpose of investigation of the case, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody."
5 For what has been discussed above, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/-, with one in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.