ZAFAR IQBAL Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Zafar Iqbal seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.172 registered at Police Station Pull 11, District Sargodha, for offences under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-L(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he was nominated as the sole perpetrator with specific injuries attributed to him, supported by prompt F.I.R., eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and a prima facie motive, notwithstanding that the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that bail is not granted as a matter of universal principle in every case outside the prohibitory clause, especially where the petitioner had previously obtained bail through improper influence on the magistrate. The key principle laid down is that the absence of the prohibitory clause does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, and judicial discretion will be withheld where previous bail was improperly secured.
- Whether bail must necessarily be granted in all cases that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be refused when the accused is nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific injuries and supported by medical and eyewitness evidence?
- Whether discretion to grant bail should be exercised in favour of an accused who obtained earlier bail by improperly influencing the magistrate?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Zafar Iqbal petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.172 registered at Police Station Pull 11, District Sargodha on 9-10-2001 for offences under sections 337-A(ii)/337-L(b), P. P. C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with the petition it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with sufficient promptitude wherein the present petitioner had been nominated as the sole perpetrator of the offences in question. In the F.I.R. specific injuries on various parts of Faryad P. W's. body had been attributed to the present petitioner. It is not disputed that the eye witnesses mentioned in the-F.I.R., including the injured victim, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the offences in question and prima facie the medical evidence also lends support to the said allegations. The petitioner also apparently stands connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. In these circumstances prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences.
3. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha (Mr. Zafar Yab Chadhar) vide order dated 10-11-2001 but subsequently the petitioner's bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 13-12-2001. While concelling the petitioner's bail the learned Additional Sessions Judge had passed a detailed ,order highlighting various improprieties committed by the said Magistrate while granting bail to the present petitioner.
4. It may be true that, that the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. but at the same time it is equally true that there is no universal principle that bail must necessarily be granted in all such cases. Apparently the petitioner had obtained bail from the learned Magistrate by improperly influencing the concerned Magistrate and, therefore, I have not felt persuaded to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner.
5. For what has been discussed above this petition is hereby dismissed in limine.
6. The Office is directed to produce the present order before the Registrar of this Court who may bring the present order as well as the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for his kind information and attention.
7. The office is further directed to send a copy of this order to the Station House Officer of Police Station Pull-11, District Sargodha for his information.
N.H.Q./Z-78/L Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs STATE PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 731