SALAMAT vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the medical evidence regarding the cause of death and the nature of the allegations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the medical report attributed the complainant's death to heart disease rather than the injuries sustained during the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court observed an unexplained one-day delay in the FIR registration, the lack of a specific role attributed to the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner had been incarcerated for six months without the conclusion of the trial. The Court established that where the prosecution's case is rendered doubtful by medical evidence and the accused is a previous non-convict, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a medical opinion attributing death to natural causes rather than injuries create a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where the offence charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the prosecution case is otherwise doubtful?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
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. 245/16 dated 24.05.2016 under sections 302, 342, 379, 337-A(i), 337- F(i), 337-L(2), 148 & 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Housing Colony, District Sheikhupura.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and 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 although petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is an unexplained delay of one day in registration FIR, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. It has been further noticed by this Court that initially the FIR was registered for offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 342, 379, 148, 149, P.P.C., out of which sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 342, P.P.C. are bailable offences and sections 379, P.P.C. does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. However, after the death of Zulfiqar Ali complainant on 04.06.2016 i.e. twelve days after the alleged occurrence, the provisions of offence under section 302, P.P.C. were added in this case, now after receipt of the report of Forensic Agency, the doctor has finally opined that the death of Zulfiqar Ali complainant occurred due to heart disease and not as a result of injuries sustained by him during the alleged occurrence. Apart from the above, no specific role in the commission of alleged occurrence has been assigned to the petitioner and only general allegation of giving beating to the complainant along with co-accused has been leveled against him. The above facts prima fade create doubt in the prosecution case and it is settled law that benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused at bail stage. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict.
He is behind the bars since 20.07.2016. Almost six months have lapsed but his trial has not been concluded as yet. Investigation to the extent of petitioner is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. Mere heinousness of offence or commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above, case of petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two 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.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ACHAR Versus State 2018 YLRN 234