Nadeem Masih vs The State etc.
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 304/14 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. entitling him to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting a three-day unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, the single non-repeated fire attributed to the petitioner resulting in an injury kept under observation, the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict, the completion of investigation qua the petitioner, and the fact that maximum punishment is not to be solely considered while deciding bail. The court laid down the principle that where an accused has not repeated the fire, the exact applicability of Section 324 PPC requires deeper appreciation of evidence at trial, rendering the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
- Whether unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR can contribute to making out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the non-repetition of a gunshot by an accused person bring the case within the scope of further inquiry for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the maximum punishment prescribed for an offense to be taken into consideration while deciding a bail petition?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.304/14 dated 01.08.2014 under sections 324, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Nishatabad, District Faisalabad.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of three days in the registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant. As per FIR the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he made fire with his pistol at Ayyub, which he sustained on his right arm. The injury on the person of injured victim has been kept under observation and report of radiologist is still awaited as per assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner has not repeated the fire. The attraction of section 324 PPC would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He was arrested in this case on 21.09.2014 and since then he is behind the bars. While deciding bail petition maximum punishment prescribed under the law is not to be taken into consideration. Investigation of the case to his extent is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.