MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 337-A(ii), 452, and 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of house trespass and causing injuries to the complainant and his wife with a sickle while attempting to commit rape. The petitioner was initially granted bail by a Magistrate, which was subsequently cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns the propriety of bail cancellation and whether bail should be granted when an offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that even if an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail is not a matter of right, particularly where the accused exhibits a desperate character and is prima facie guilty of moral turpitude supported by prompt FIR and visible injuries on the victims.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as of right merely because the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an attempt to commit rape coupled with acts of violence reflect a desperate character disentitling the accused to bail?
- Whether bail can be refused when prompt F.I.R. and visible injuries prima facie connect the accused to the crime?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.357 of 2001, dated 12‑5‑2001 under sections 337‑A(ii)/452/337 -F(i), P.P.C., Police Station, Jaranwala District Faisalabad wherein it is alleged that on the fateful night when the complainant came back from his daily labour and entered his house he saw the petitioner belabouring his wife and caused injuries with sickle, when the complainant tried to intervene he too was given blows on a various parts of the body. On the hue and cry raised by the complainant and his wife P.Ws. were attracted and the petitioner/accused decamped from the spot. The motive alleged is that the petitioner wanted to commit rape with his wife. Petitioner was arrested on 14‑5‑2001. He was allowed bail by the concerned Magistrate on 26‑7‑2001 but the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13‑11‑2001 on the application made by the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the petitioner is innocent, that there is no independent witness of the occurrence, that he was allowed bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction but the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, although no tenable grounds were available to cancel the bail. He lastly added that the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of the submissions made learned counsel relied on P.L.D. 1995 SC 34.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel opposed the petition by submitting that it is a case of prompt F.I.R., that the offence under section 458, P.P.C. is attracted which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and That there is no reason why the complainant should falsely implicate the petitioner.
4. Heard.
5. Petitioner is accused of having entered complainant's house with a view to commit rape with his wife. To the good‑luck of complainant's wife the complainant reached the house after daily labour and her honour was saved. There are four injuries on the person of the complainant and three injuries on the person of his wife. These injuries prima facie indicate that the latter offered resistance and the former came to her rescue and both were given blows by the petitioner. Neither before the Additional Sessions Judge, nor before this Court, petitioner has given any reason as to why he should be falsely implicated. Even if the offence alleged does not fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner cannot ask for bail as of right. The alleged act reflects a desperate character and petitioner ex‑facie is guilty of moral turpitude. For the afore‑referred reasons I am not inclined to allow this petition which is dismissed.
S.M.A.H./M‑1450/L Bail declined.