MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs The STATE
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Muhammad Yamin, following the dismissal of his bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi South. The applicant was charged under FIR 545/2016 for offences including assault and causing hurt. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the case against the applicant warranted further inquiry into his guilt. Key factors influencing this decision included the generalized and collective nature of the allegations, the absence of specific attribution of injury to the applicant, the lack of weapon recovery, and significant delays in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, the Court noted that co-accused facing similar allegations had already been granted bail, and that the parties were antagonistic neighbours, making false implication a possibility. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where allegations are generalized and the case requires further inquiry, bail should be granted to ensure parity and fairness.
- Does the absence of specific attribution of injury in a collective FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the parties have a history of antagonism and the FIR is delayed?
- Should parity be extended to an accused when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 352, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---Through this application, Muhammad Yamin applicant has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him under FIR 545/2016 at Police Station Boat Basin under sections 354, 352, 506 and 504, P.P.C. along with 337-A(i) of P.P.C. Previously, he appeared before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Karachi South where his pre-arrest bail was declined. This Court has already granted interim pre-arrest bail and now the matter is brought before me for confirmation or otherwise.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed as follows:
(a) The allegations against the applicant are that he entered in the house of complainant with his family members and others and manhandled the complainant and other inmates due to which, the complainant lost to her foetus.
(b) In the alleged incident, specific injury is not attributed to the applicant but the allegation levelled against him and other accused in the FIR was couched in generalized and collective terms.
(c) Admittedly no fire arm or sharp cutting weapon is used, therefore, question of recovery does not arise.
(d) The complainant has not bothered to report the incident immediately while police station was at a distance of only about half a kilometre.
(e) The FIR was lodged after seeking directions from the ex-officio justice of peace even then the complainant did not approach to police to record her statement immediately and FIR was lodged with a further delay of two days.
(f) It is traceable from the record that the accused and complainant are residing in neighbourhood and the parties were already antagonistic.
(g) The complainant has approached to private medical practitioner and the medical record is not reliable to connect the untoward happening with the alleged incident.
(h) All of the co-accused for whom similar allegations are levelled succeeded in getting the relief of bail, therefore, similar treatment is required to be extended to the applicant.
3. For what has been observed above I have found the case against the applicant to be a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Besides, being neighbouring residents with hostile and unfriendly relations, false involvement is not ruled out. Consequently, the pre-arrest bail granted to applicant is confirmed on the same terms and condition.
4. These are the reasons for my short order pronounced on 20-03-2017.