MUBARIK ALI Versus State
This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 450, 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner entered the complainant's courtyard and inflicted a head injury using the butt of a pistol. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the lack of recovery of the weapon, and the nature of the offense. The Lahore High Court granted bail, holding that the petitioner had been incarcerated for five months without the trial commencing or charges being framed. Furthermore, the court noted that the weapon of offense was not recovered, the prosecution witnesses had submitted affidavits exonerating the petitioner, there was an unexplained five-day delay in lodging the FIR, and the alleged offense under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 carried a maximum punishment of only two years, making it a bailable-type situation warranting release.
- Whether an unexplained delay of five days in lodging an FIR, coupled with the non-recovery of the weapon of offense, constitutes a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted where the prosecution witnesses submit affidavits exonerating the accused and the trial has not commenced after several months?
- Does an offense under Section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum punishment of two years, justify the grant of bail when the accused has been incarcerated for five months without trial?
- Section 450, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
NAZIR AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.- -Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.497 of 2004, dated 1-10-2004 under sections 450, 337-A(i) and 34, P.P.C. Police Station, Harrappa District Sahiwal.
2. As per F.I.R., petitioner was found in the courtyard of the complainant's house along with another person and he caused an injury on the head of the complainant with butt of his pistol.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last five months and there is no likelihood of commencement of trial in near future inasmuch as the charge has not been framed; that there is no recovery of the crime weapon i.e. pistol; that the P.Ws. named in the F.I.R. have given the affidavits wherein they have not supported the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence; that there , is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in such-like cases; that the injury A allegedly attributed to the petitioner falls within the mischief of section 337-A(i), P.P.C. for which punishment is 2 years; that there is a delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R., not properly explained.
5. For what has been stated above, instant petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-194/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.