QASIM vs The STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 226/17 registered under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the attribution, the applicability of prohibitory clauses, and the statutory provisions concerning previous non-convicts. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting an unexplained eight-day delay in the FIR, the tentative nature of the injury attributed, the applicability of section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for a previous non-convict, and the hardship of prolonged incarceration without trial progress. Consequently, the petition was allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner.
- Whether an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitutes a ground for further inquiry in a post-arrest bail petition?
- Does section 337-N(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 protect a previous non-convict from a sentence of imprisonment under certain hurt offences?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period when the investigation is complete and trial has not concluded?
- Whether the maximum punishment prescribed for an offence or the likely punishment under the facts and circumstances should be considered while deciding bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 347, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.226/17, dated 13.06.2017 under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(2), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of eight days in registration of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. As per FIR, the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he gave fist blow to Noor Muhammad injured which landed on his nose and caused fracture and the injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared by the doctor as 337-A(iii), P.P.C. It is settled law that while deciding bail petition, maximum punishment is not to be considered and the punishment likely to be awarded to the petitioner according to the facts and circumstances of this case is to be considered. Even otherwise, 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 Sessions under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also settled law that when there are two inferences. the one in favour of the accused shall be drawn. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case, so section 337-N(2), P.P.C. also comes to his rescue which provides that sentence of imprisonment can only be awarded if accused is a previous convict, habitual or desperate criminal or has committed the offence in the name of or on the pretext of honour. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 15.06.2017 and since then he is behind the bars without any fruitful progress towards the conclusion of his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. 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.
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 is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety 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.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUNIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2019 SHC 432
- MUNIR HUSSAIN Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 111