Kamran Khalil vs State and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 354, 337-F(i), and 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code arising from a matrimonial dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the delayed medical examination, the complainant's non-appearance before the District Standing Medical Board, and the inutility of a belated weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the injured party's failure to appear before the medical board indicated mala fide and that the passage of time rendered any expected weapon recovery useless to the prosecution. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down principles regarding mala fide involvement in matrimonial disputes, the significance of defying a medical board re-examination, and the redundancy of stale weapon recoveries.
- Does the non-appearance of an injured person before a medical board for re-examination indicate mala fide sufficient to grant pre-arrest bail?
- Can the delayed recovery of a weapon after several months serve any useful purpose to the prosecution in a bail matter?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when mala fide involvement arising from a matrimonial dispute is apparent?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Kamran Khalil through the instant petition seeks pre-arrest bail iri case FIR No. 656 dated 11.6.2020 registered at P.S. Ladhey Wala Warraich District Gujranwala offences under Section 354, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii) of PPC.
2. Notice was issued to the complainant but no one appeared on his behalf despite the fact that as per police report he has been intimated through telephone. Even otherwise, it is a State case and learned Addl. Prosecutor General is ready to argue, the same therefore, I proceed to decide the instant petition after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Addl. Prosecutor General for the State and perusing the record.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, on 8.6.2020 at 08:00 a.m. Punchiat proceedings took place in the house of the petitioner regarding matrimonial dispute of the petitioner with his wife, namely Mst. Iqra Begum.
During the said Punchiat proceedings a quarrel took place whereupon the petitioner inflicted a Churri below , which landed on the left arm of his wife, namely Mst. Iqra Begum. Hence, the above mentioned FIR.
5. The injury attributed to the petitioner was declared to be punishable under Section 337-F(ii) of PPC. It is noteworthy that although the occurrence of this case took place on 08.06.2020 at 08:00 a.m. but the alleged injured of this case, namely Mst. Iqra Begum, was medically examined on the next date i.e. on 09.06.2020 at 02:15 p.m.
The petitioner challenged the MLR of. Mst. Iqra Begum before the District Standing Medical Board and as per report of the District Standing Medical Board the alleged injured was summoned twice for her re-examination on 07.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 but she did not turn up for the above mentioned purpo se. The non-appearance of the alleged injured of this case before the District Standing Medical Board speaks of mala fide, which entitles the petitioner to the grant of pre-arrest bail. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the cases reported as "Muhammad Essa vs. The State and another " (2012 SCMR 646), "Muhammad Fayyaz v. The State and another " (2013 YLR 370) and "Ghulam Abbas vs. The State and another " (2017 YLR Note 78). Although it is argued by learned APG that blood stained Churri is still to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner but I have noted that occurrence in this case took place on 8.6.2020 and a period of four months and sixteen days has already elapsed from the date of alleged occurrence, therefore, the blood, if any, on the Churri expected to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner , must have disintegrated in the meanwhile, therefore, possible recovery of Churri from the possession of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution and as such a case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out in favour of petitioner . Reference in this context may be made to the cases reported as 'Malik Muhammad Aslam vs. The State & others' (2014 SCMR 1349 ) and 'Muhammad Jamil vs. Muhammad Akram and others' (2009 SCMR 120). Possibility of mala fide involvement of the petitioner in this case due to matrimonial dispute cannot be ruled out at this stage. Resultantly , this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail alread y granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing the fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupes one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.