MUHAMMAD FIAZ, etc. Petitioners vs STATE, etc.
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 222/15 registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail, given the nature of the allegations and the extent of their participation. The Lahore High Court held that where petitioners are attributed a general role and have joined the investigation which is complete, custodial interrogation serves no useful purpose, warranting confirmation of pre-arrest bail. Conversely, where specific active involvement is supported by medical evidence and witness statements, pre-arrest bail is rightly refused. The key principle laid down is that general attribution coupled with a completed investigation and absence of utility in custody justifies confirming pre-arrest bail, while specific, supported allegations of causing hurt bar such extraordinary relief.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the accused are attributed a general role and have joined a completed investigation?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be refused to an accused who is specifically attributed the injury supported by medical evidence?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Fayyaz, Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Shahbaz, petitioners seek their pre- arrest bail in case FIR No. 222/15 dated 30.05.2015, registered under Sections 337-A.I), 337-A(iii) and 34, PPC, at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah.
2. The allegation against the petitioners as set forth in the FIR is they, along with their accomplices, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted fists blows on the person of complainant, due to which, his two teeth were broken.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reflects that there is delay of more than 8 days in lodging the FIR which is unexplained. As per police record, the role of Muhammad Fayyaz and Muhammad Iftikhar, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is general one whereas the quarrel was only took place between the complainant and Muhammad Shahbaz, Petitioner No. 3 who gave fist blow on the face of complainant due to which, he became injured and his two teeth were broken. MLC is there to support the said accusation.
5. In view of the above, since Muhammad Shahbaz, prima facie, appears to have been involved in the commission of alleged offence and sufficient material in the shape of MLC and statements of the PWs are available on record, therefore, I am not inclined to extend this extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail in his favour. As such, this petition to his extent is hereby dismissed.
6. So far as the case of Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Fayyaz, petitioners is concerned, they have been attributed a general role of fighting and giving slaps on the face of complainant. To what extent, they have participated in the occurrence, is the question, which would be adjudged at trial stage. According to the Investigating Officer, they have joined the investigation, which is even otherwise complete. Handing over their custody to the police, at this stage, would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
7. In view of the above, this petition to the extent of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 is hereby accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One hundred Thousand) each with ne surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, whereas the petition to the extent of Muhammad Shahbaz, Petitioner No. 2 is hereby dismissed.
8. The observations referred above are only of tentative in nature and would not prejudice the trial of the case.