SHAREEFAN BIBI vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Shareefan Bibi in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(i), 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of causing the loss of a tooth. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged injury. The Court observed an unexplained nine-day delay in lodging the FIR and noted that, based on established precedent, the loss of a tooth does not constitute the loss of an organ under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had joined the investigation, nothing was recovered from her, and as a female accused, incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case is weakened by significant delay and the specific nature of the injury does not satisfy the statutory definition of an organ, bail should be granted, particularly when the accused has cooperated with the investigation.
- Does the loss of a tooth constitute the loss of an organ under Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an unexplained nine-day delay in lodging an FIR a relevant factor for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Should a female accused be granted pre-arrest bail when she has joined the investigation and nothing has been recovered from her?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-W, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Shareefan Bibi, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 21 dated 21.1.2017 under Sections 337- A(i), 336, 34, PPC registered at Police Station Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused and in furtherance of common intention caused Salahiyyat-i-Udw (up-rooted tooth of the complainant)
3. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that there was unexplained delay of nine days in lodging the FIR. The question of applicability of Sections 334/337W), PPC would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence in view of the allegation. In "Zahoor Ahmad and another v. The State"
(2005 YLR 1664), this Court observed that the case under Section 334, PPC is made out if any organ or limb is amputated whereas fingers of hand or toes of foot are not organs and similarly tooth are not organs, the whole jaw is an organ. The petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from her possession. She is female and sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would not serve any purpose to the prosecution and this would be a colour of ludicrousness to send the petitioner behind the bars, if she has to come out after a few days. Reliance, in this respect can be placed on "Muhammad Aslam v. The State" (1999 CrLJ 749). She has asserted mala fide in the instant petition without allegation of the misuse of ad-interim pre arrest bail.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to her furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Judge.