Muhammad Faisal vs The State and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal assailing the order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under FIR No. 524/2019. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of injuries attributed to him and the delayed declaration of the same. The Supreme Court held that the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, converting the petition into an appeal and allowing it by granting bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where cumulative circumstances—such as non-vital injury location, short hospital stay, and belated injury classification—create doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution version, the benefit of such doubt can be extended even at the bail stage, and liberty of a person being a precious right guaranteed by the Constitution should be protected.
- Whether the benefit of doubt can be extended to an accused person at the bail stage?
- Does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution version is surrounded by doubt?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the offenses charged do not strictly fall within the prohibitory clause and the injury attributes require deeper assessment during trial?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337 F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J. Petitioner has assailed the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calling in question the order of learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi dated 20.01.2020 with prayer to grant leave against the order and to release the petitioner on post arrest bail in the interest of justice.
2. The petitioner alongwith others was involved in case bearing FIR No.524/2019 dated 05.08.2019, registered with police station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi.
As per allegation contained in the crime report, it is alleged that petitioner while armed with pistol .30 bore resorted to two consecutive fire shots which landed on right knee and below the right knee on left side of injured PW .
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the injuries ascribed to the petitioner are exaggerated by the prosecution. Contends that dimension of injury No.2 comme nsurate with injury No.1 which shows that both the injuries are in continuation of each other . Further contends that the injured PW was admitted in the hospital, however , he was discharged on the following day which fact in isolation reflects that the injured PW was not suffering from any serious injury . It has been further argued that declaration of injury was made at a belated stage with the delay of eight months which speaks volume qua its authenticity . Lastly it has been argued that even if it is assumed that the injuries has been caused by the petitioner , still it do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr .P.C. entitling the petitioner for the relief sought for .
4. On the other hand, the injured PW present in person has stated that he sustained two fire shot injuries by the hands of the petitioner . He was admitted in the hospital for a considerable time where he was operated upon; hence, petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
As per prosecution version contained in the FIR, though the petitioner has been attributed two fire shots on non- vital part of the body of injured PW, however , dimension and locale of injuries portray that possibility cannot be ruled out that injures No. 1 & 2 are in continuation of each other . Perusal of record further reveals that the petitioner was admitted in hospital on 19.08.2019 while he was discharged on the following day i.e. 20.08.2019. The statement of injured PW that he has undergone surgical intervention is not substantiated from the record. The injury ascribed to the petitioner has been declared falling under section 337 F(vi) PPC which entail as per statue maximum punishment of seven years. There is no denial to this fact that the declaration of injury was made after the lapse of eight months i.e. on 04.05 .2020, during the pendency of instant petition before this Court. The accumulative effect of all these facts and circumstances create doubt regarding truthfulness of prosecution version.
It is established principle of law that benefit of doubt can even be extended at bail stage.
6. As far as the question of applicability of section 324 PPC is concerned, undenia bly, the injuries are on non-vital part against a motive which is feeble in nature, hence, we are constrained to give any finding lest it may prejudice case of either party , however , it would be resolved by the learned trial court after recording of evidence during the course of proceeding before it. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and while seeking guidance from judgment of this Court titled as "Muhammad Umar vs. the State and another" (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477), we are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is of "further inquiry" falling within the ambit of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Otherwise, liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. As a consequence of the facts and circumstances surfaced on the record, we are persuaded to grant leave in this case. As such, Criminal Petition is converted into appeal, same is allowed; the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.
8. Before parting with the order , it has been made clear that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and it has no bearing during the course of proceedings before the learned trial court.