DILAWAR vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 20/2017, involving charges under sections 324, 334, 459, 337-F(v), 337-F(iv), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail after arrest given the evidentiary discrepancies and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell under the category of further inquiry. This decision was based on a significant conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence, specifically regarding the number of firearm injuries attributed to the petitioner versus the actual injuries recorded in the medico-legal certificate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that an unexplained one-day delay in FIR registration suggested deliberation. The Court also noted that the investigation was complete, the petitioner was a first-time offender, and the prolonged incarceration without trial progress violated the right to a speedy trial. The principle established is that mere heinousness of an offence is insufficient to deny bail when the case otherwise warrants it on merits.
- Does a conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can an accused be refused bail solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence if the case otherwise merits the grant of bail?
- Is a delay in the registration of an FIR a relevant factor for the court to consider when assessing the merits of a bail petition?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 347, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.20/2017 dated 20.01.2017 under sections 324, 334, 459, 337-F(v), 337- F(iv), 337-F(iii), 337-F(i), 109, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. I have heard the learned counsellor the petitioner and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessm ent is permissible at this stage. It has been noticed that although petitioner is named in FIR yet the fact remains that there is an unexplained delay of one day in registration of the same, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered with due deliberation and consultation. In FIR, the petitioner has been assigned the role of causing firearm injury on right leg of Sarfraz Ahmad injured and on the same leg, a firearm injury has also been attributed to co- accused Tanveer Aslam, but according to Medico-legal Certificate of Sarfraz Ahmad injured, there is only one firearm injury on right leg of the said injured. This conflict in the medical evidence and ocular account makes the case of present petitioner one of further inquiry. The offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who can award punishment upto seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Even otherwise, it is settled law that maximum punishment is not to be considered while deciding the bail application. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. The investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He was arrested in connection with this case on 08.02.2017 and more than one year has lapsed, but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Nobody can be kept in jail for indefinite period as speedy trial is right of every accused, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner are granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each 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.