Bilawal vs The State and another
This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's role, the nature of the injury attributed to a non-vital part of the body without repetition, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the statutory period of incarceration bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that no specific injury was attributed in the F.I.R., the firearm injury to the leg fell under a section carrying a lesser sentence, a co-accused with a similar role was declared innocent, and the trial had not concluded while the petitioner remained incarcerated. The key principle laid down is that where an injury is on a non-vital part of the body without repetition and questions of intent require further evidence, the case calls for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Does a firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body without repetition make a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the trial has not concluded and the accused has no previous criminal record?
- Does delay in lodging the F.I.R. without explanation contribute to grounds for bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J. -- Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Bilawal petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 463-12, dated 22.7.2012 under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337- F(i), F(iii), 34, PPC registered at Police Station, Khurrianwala District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that petitioner while armed with a pistol and co-accused Sanawar alias Shani armed with a carbine fired upon injured Muhammad Younas. It is alleged that thereafter Rehmat Ali gave bricks blows on the head of Younas, whereas, allegedly the petitioner and his co-accused Sanawar gave butt blows of their fire-arm weapons on the head of injured Younas.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and co-accused Sanawar alias Shani was found innocent and he was not even arrested by the police; that role of the petitioner is similar to that of his co-accused Sanawar; that injuries on the head of Younas are simple in nature because the same have been declared as Shajjah-e-Khafifa; that the injured in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Alleged that the petitioner fired a pistol shot hitting on the right leg which was ultimately declared as Jurh Ghair Jaifah Mutlihima falling under Section 337-F(iii), PPC.
4. On the other hand, learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition while arguing that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And injured was medically examined on the same day; that the petitioner got recovered a pistol and a carbine.
However, learned DDPP after going through the record concedes that petitioner has no previous criminal record.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Allegedly no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. Subsequently, the injured made statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Wherein he claimed that fire shot of the petitioner landed on right leg. Said injured did not allege that the petitioner had repeated his shot. Injury attributed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body without any repetition. The said injury was declared as Jurh Ghair Jaifah Mutalhima falling under Section 337- F(iii), PPC punishable upto three years imprisonment. Allegedly the petitioner gave butt blows of the pistol on the head of injured, but he did not fire shot upon the vital part of the body of the injured. In their eventuality, the learned Trial Court after recording evidence will determine whether the petitioner was having any intention to commit the murder of injured or not. Sanawar co-accused had allegedly fired upon the injured but he was not arrested by the police and was declared innocent. The occurrence took place on 20.7.2012 whereas, the F.I.R. Was chalked out on 22.7.2012. There is no explanation for said delay, due to the above-mentioned reasons, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than six months and' his trial has not been concluded. He has no previous criminal record.
7. Consequently, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner Bilawal is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.