MAZHAR IQBAL vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, Mazhar Iqbal, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 132/2018, registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the subsequent evidentiary developments in the case. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted a hatchet blow to the complainant's head; however, the complainant later recorded a supplementary statement exonerating the petitioner and attributing the injury to a co-accused, Dilshad, who had already been granted pre-arrest bail. The Court held that, in light of the complainant's supplementary statement, the possibility of the petitioner's false implication could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, determining that remanding the petitioner to police custody would serve no useful purpose. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a complainant's subsequent statement creates significant doubt regarding the accused's involvement, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant has exonerated the accused in a supplementary statement?
- Does the granting of bail to a co-accused for the same offense influence the court's decision regarding the petitioner's bail?
- Is it appropriate to confirm pre-arrest bail when the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This petition has been moved by Mazhar Iqbal accused in case FIR No. 132/2018 dated 14.03.2018 under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 148, 149 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu District Khanewal seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. Allegation against petitioner , as per FIR, is that he gave a blow with hatchet on head of the complainant.
According to MLC of complainant, injury on his head was a lacerated wound. Thereafter , complainant got recorded supplementary statement, whereby he exonerated the petitioner and stated that in fact Dilshad co-accused gave a blow with Danda on his head. Said Dilshad has already been allowed pre-arrest bail. In such backdrop, false implication of petitioner cannot be ruled out. So, sending the petitioner to police custody at this stage would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, petition in hand is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court is confirmed, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.