REHMAT ULLAH vs STATE and another
This criminal petition arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rehmat Ullah, in connection with FIR No. 330, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Taunsa. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was initially granted bail as a juvenile but subsequently had that bail cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations against him. The court observed that the primary injury to the complainant was attributed to a co-accused, Abdul Karim, who had already been granted bail. The only role assigned to the petitioner was damaging a car, an act falling under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable in nature. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to relief. The petition was allowed, and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing the principle that bail should be granted when the specific role attributed to an accused involves a bailable offense, regardless of the overall FIR charges.
- Is an offense under Section 427 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered bailable?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused whose specific role in an FIR is limited to a bailable offense, even if other co-accused face non-bailable charges?
- Does the absence of an injury attribution to an accused justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner, namely, Rehmat Ullah seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 330, dated 15.10.2016, registered under Sections 337-A(ii)/337-A(iii)/427/34, PPC, at Police Station City Taunsa, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. As per record, during the occurrence, which resulted into an injury to Muhammad Zaman PW-, at the hands of Abdul Karim co-accused, the petitioner had damaged a car belonging to the complainant party.
3. On registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested and consequently the learned Area Magistrate, while declaring him as a juvenile had granted bail to him on 19.11.2016. The complainant through an application had sought cancellation of the bail, granted to the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge Taunsa Sharif, District Dera Ghazi Khan, through order dated 17.01.2017, had cancelled the bail of the petitioner, where-after he, for pre-arrest bail had approached the same learned Court but declined on 22.12.2017.
4. No injury to Muhammad Zaman PW- was attributed to the petitioner, rather it was assigned to Abdul Karim co-accused, who had been admitted to bail. The only alleged role of the petitioner was that he had damaged a car belonging to the complainant party. In this way, at the most he is responsible for offence under Section 427, PPC, which is bailable in nature.
5. Consequently, while considering the above mentioned and circumstances, the role of the petitioner and the offence attributed to him, he has been found entitled to the relief claimed for.
6. Resultantly, the petition in hand is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), with one surety, in the like amount, to satisfaction of the learned trial Court.