Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal vs State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 294 dated 15.05.2020 registered under Sections 380, 354, 337-F(v), 337-A(i), 337L(2), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, after his similar relief was declined by the subordinate court. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, attribution of injuries, rule of consistency with a co-accused, and the bailable or non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the case calls for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that several offences are bailable while others fall outside the prohibitory clause, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle established is that where a co-accused's bail has been confirmed and the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry without attracting the prohibitory clause, pre-arrest bail should be granted to protect the liberty of a person.
- Whether an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when the case of a petitioner is not distinctly different from a co-accused whose bail has already been confirmed?
- Are offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally considered fit for the grant of bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 9, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
After having been fizzled out in obtaining the relief of pre-arrest bail from the learned subordinate Court, the petitioner apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, by means of instant petition has prayed for the same in case FIR No. 294, dated 15.05.2020, offences under Sections 380, 354, 337-F(v ), 337-A(i), 337L(2), 34, PPC, registered with Police Station Gaggo, District V ehari.
2.Concisely , the allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the crime report is that on 09.05.2020 he along with his co-accused while armed with their respective weapons entered into the house of the complainant and beat wife and daughter of complainant, outraged their modesty and also caused injuries to his wife.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It is straightaway observed that there is unexplained delay of 06 days in lodging the FIR. Further Injury No. 2 has been attributed to two accused persons. Moreover , pre-arrest bail of Iqbal co-accused of the petitioner has been confirmed by learned ASJ vide order dated 20.06.2020. The case of the petitioner is not distinctly different from his co-accused. Such circumstances make the case against the, petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. More so, offence under Sections 337-A(i), 337L(2), 354, PPC, are bailable whereas remaining offence do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Liberty of a person is a precious right guaranteed by the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In such peculiar circumstances sending the petitioner behind the bars would serve no useful purpose. However , culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of prosecution evidence, therefore, instant petition is allowed, ad-interim bail alread y granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 17.09.2020 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100, 000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. The above observations are tentative in nature and would not be taken as conclusive.