Nawaz vs The State and another
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding an FIR registered under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337F(iv), and 337F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the delay in FIR registration, the nature of the injuries, and the existence of a cross-version. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, reasoning that the eight-day delay in FIR registration was unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the injury attributed to the petitioner did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner was entitled to the rule of consistency as a co-accused with a similar role had been granted bail. The Court also noted the existence of a cross-version suppressed by the complainant, rendering the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was allowed, establishing that where a case involves two versions and non-prohibitory offences, bail is appropriate.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under the rule of consistency if a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does the existence of a cross-version in a criminal case render the matter one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.299/15 dated 05.06.2015 under sections 324, 148, 149 PPC, later on sections 337F(iv), 337F(v) PPC were added, registered at Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case 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 although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of eight days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. The present petitioner has been attributed firearm injury on the left thigh of Lashkar injured/complainant, which was declared by the doctor as 337F(iv) PPC, which does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Admittedly the petitioner has not repeated the fire, so the attraction of section 324 PPC to the extent of the present petitioner shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Furthermore, co-accused of the petitioner namely Munawar , who has been assigned similar role in the alleged occurrence, has been granted bail after arrest by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.09.2015, so the petitioner also deserves same treatment under the rule of consistency . Even otherwise after the registration of instant FIR, cross-version was also recorded by the petitioner side which still holds field, but this fact has been suppressed by the complainant in the FIR so the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR has become doubtful. It has also become a case of two versions one put forward by the complainant of the FIR and the other in the shape of cross-version recorded by the petitioner side and which version is correct is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 11.06.2015. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
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 petitio n 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.