Muhammad Hanif vs State and Another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from FIR No. 628/2020, involving allegations of assault and injury under Sections 337-F(vi), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of causing a fracture to the complainant's uncle using a wooden rod. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the evidentiary discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the nine-day delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with a contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence—specifically regarding the date of occurrence and the duration of injuries—fatally undermined the prosecution's case. The Court emphasized that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where medical evidence contradicts the ocular account and unexplained delays exist, the possibility of mala fide and false implication warrants the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the medical evidence contradicts the ocular account provided in the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition: Muhammad Hanif, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 628/2020, dated 28.12.2020, offences under Sections 337-F(vi), 147, 149, PPC, registered with the Police Station Saddar Phoolnagar , District Kasur .
2. As per FIR got lodged by Ghulam Rabbani complainant, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 19.12.2020, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused assaulted upon the materna l uncle of the complainant and injured him. During the occurrence, the petitioner caused wooden rod blows on the left leg of injured Muhammad Ali, resulted into fracture of his left leg.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific roles but the fact remains that there is unexplained delay of about nine days, in reporting the matter to the Police, for which the prosecution has not advanced any explanation in the narration of crime report, which is fatal to the prosecution's case.
5. It is noticed that the occurrence allegedly took place on 19.12.2020 but while providing history to the Medical Officer, the injured Muhammad Ali stated that on 18.12.2020 he was hit by a wooden rod. Moreover, the Medical Officer has mentioned the probable duration of injuries as 24-48 hours. In view of above, the MLC of Muhammad Ali injured negates the ocular account furnished by the complainant in the FIR, which established mala fide on the part of the complainant. It is well settled that while granting pre-arrest bail, Court could consider the merits of the case in addition to element of mala fides and ulterior motives. Wisdom is drawn from Muhammad Jahangir Khan and others v. The State and others (2020 SCMR 1270 ) and Khair Muhammad and another v . The State through I. G. Punjab and another ( 2021 SCMR 130 ).
6. The offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In view of above, prima facie , the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and chances of his false implication with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has already joined the investigation, therefore, sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
7. Consequently , this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,00D/-(rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Needless to mention that the observat ions made hereinabove are only tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the extent of grant of instant bail.