MUHAMMAD YOUSAF etc. vs STATE etc.
The petitioners Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Murtaza, and Imran Abbas sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 495 of 2015 registered under Sections 337-A(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioners to pre-arrest bail in light of the roles attributed to them and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The Lahore High Court held that petitioner Muhammad Yousaf, being specifically nominated with a role corroborated by the medical certificate and witness statements, was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, resulting in the dismissal of his petition. However, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail of petitioners Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas, noting that no specific injury or overt act was attributed to them, that they had joined the investigation, and that the investigation was complete. The key legal principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be denied to an accused with a specific, corroborated role involving grievous hurt, while it may be confirmed for co-accused lacking specific overt acts who have fully participated in completed investigations.
- Whether an accused specifically nominated in the FIR with a corroborated role of causing a fracture is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR affect the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed for co-accused who are not attributed any specific overt acts and have joined the investigation?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners namely Muhammad Yousaf, Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 495/2015 dated 12.08.2015 offence under Section 337-A(iii), 148, 149, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station, Yousafwala, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the, prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that petitioners inflicted injuries on the jaw of the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is delay of about 22 days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained. The petitioner Yousaf is named in the FIR with a specific role of giving fists blow on the jaw of the complainant resulting into fracture of the same, which is duly corroborated by the MLC issued by the doctor. The complainant and his PWs also supported the version of prosecution in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, the petitioner Muhammad Yousaf is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, hence to this extent the instant bail petition is hereby dismissed.
5. Although the petitioner Ghulam Murtaza was allegedly armed with pistol but no injury or overt act is attributed to him, whereas Imran Abbas allegedly only-accompanied the aforementioned petitioners. He was also not attributed any specific role. The I.O. Present before the Court has frankly conceded that both the petitioners have already joined the investigation of the instant case, which is complete. They are previously non-convict. No useful purpose would be served by handing over the person of Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas petitioners to the police.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners Ghulam Murtaza and Imran Abbas vide order dated 04.11.2015 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature and would not prejudice the case '"of either side at trial stage.