MUHAMMAD INTIZAR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a cross-version case registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from FIR No. 472 dated 14.08.2013 at Police Station Sadar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, wherein he was accused of firing a single shot at the injured person's left leg. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry to warrant the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that there was a five-day delay in lodging the cross-version, a single fire on a non-vital part of the body was attributed to the petitioner, the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the question of intent to kill requires further inquiry during trial, and the petitioner could not be incarcerated indefinitely when the conclusion of the trial was not in sight.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a single firearm injury attributed to an accused on a non-vital part of the body bring the case within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the conclusion of the trial is not in sight?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in a cross version case of F.LR No, 472 dated .14.08.2013, under Sections 324/34 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Sadar Jaranwala, District Faisalabad.
2. According to the allegations leveled in the cross version, the petitioner while armed with carbine fired at Eijaz Ahmed which hit at his left leg.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia while reiterating his grounds given in the bail application prayed for grant of bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that there is a delay of five days in lodging the cross version case. Only single fire is attributed to the petitioner and that injury has been declared by the doctor as 337- The complaint filed by the accused persons of cross version is pending. The petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2013 and after completion of the investigation, challan in this case has been submitted on 15.10.2013 with no progress in trial. The offences do' not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. As the petitioner fired only a single shot which hit on non-vital part of the injured, So, intention to kill shall be seen at the time of trial. The petitioner is behind the bar ' for about eight months and conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future, so he can not be kept behind the bar for indefinite period.
7. In view of above circumstances, the case of petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry, resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,0001- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. It is clarified that observations made in this petition are tentative in nature and shall have no affect upon the trial of main case in any manner.