KHALIL AHMED and 2 others vs STATE and another
This criminal petition arises from an application by Khalil Ahmad, Iqbal alias Papu, and Gulzar Ahmed seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 379/2017 registered under Sections 337-F(iii), F(i), A(i), 148, 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thingi, District Vehari. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them, the applicability of the prohibitory clause, and an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The court held that the injury attributed to one petitioner was bailable, the injuries attributed to the other petitioners fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and an unexplained six-day delay in reporting the matter weakened the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause, there is an unexplained delay in reporting, and the prosecution lacks sufficient incriminating material at the pre-trial stage.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the offenses charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR considered fatal to the prosecution's case at the bail stage?
- Can the question of vicarious liability under Sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be properly assessed at the trial stage after recording evidence?
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, Khalil Ahmad, Iqbal alias Papu and Gulzar Ahmed, the petitioners, seek pre- arrest bail in case FIR No, 379/2017, dated 11.10.2017, offences under Sections 337-F(iii), F(i), A(i), 148, 149, PPC, registered with the Police Station Thingi, District Vehari.
2. Precisely, according to the crime report dated 11.10.2017 lodged by Hanifan Bibi complainant, the allegations against the petitioners are that they while armed with different weapons assaulted upon the complainant's party and during the occurrence petitioner Khalil Ahmed inflicted a sota blow injury on the forehead of Muhammad Imran and Gulzar Ahmed petitioner also caused a sota blow injury on the knee of Muhammad Imran whereas petitioner Iqbal inflicted a sota blow on the right wrist of Ramzana Bibi.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. After careful consideration of respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Law Officer and after careful perusal of the record, I found that the injury attributed to the petitioner Khalil Ahmed has been declared falling under Section 337-A(i) PPC, which is bailable in nature Whereas, injuries attributed to the petitioners Iqbal alias Pappu and Gulzar Ahmed have been declared falling under section 337-F(iii) PPC and the same does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
5. Besides above, it is noticed that the occurrence allegedly took place on 05.10.2017, whereas, the matter was reported to the Police on 11.10.2017 after delay of six days for Which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the complainant side and thus the same is fatal to the case of prosecution at this stage.
6. As far as the matter of vicarious liability, it would be seen at the time of trial after recording the evidence. Guidance is sought from Muhammad Azeem and others v. the State and others (2015 YLR 2441) and Munawar v. The State (1981 SCM R 1092).
7. In the attending circumstances, prima facie the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and chances of petitioners' false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out, therefore, sending the petitioners behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. Pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motive. Guidance is sought from Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
8. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.