MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Iqbal, in connection with F.I.R. No. 26 of 2006, registered under sections 337-F(vi), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of his involvement in causing injuries to the complainant and a prosecution witness. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, was not present at the scene, and that the injuries were self-suffered. The Court, upon reviewing the record, noted that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R., a specific role of causing a fracture to the right hand of a witness with a 'sota' was attributed to him, and the medical report corroborated the fracture. Finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police, the Court dismissed the bail application, holding that pre-arrest bail is not a fit remedy where specific incriminating allegations are supported by medical evidence and no mala fide is established.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused is specifically named in the F.I.R. and medical evidence supports the alleged injuries?
- Does the absence of established mala fide on the part of the complainant or police preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--- The petitioner has applied for pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.26 of 2006, dated 24-1-2006 under sections 337- F(vi), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Chutiana, District T.T. Singh.
2. As per F.I.R. on 19-1-2006 petitioner and his co-accused while armed with different weapons caused injuries on the persons of Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. and Ghulam Mustafa, complainant. The case was registered on 24-1-2006. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. He contended that according to report of Medical Board injury on the person of Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. is self-suffered, hence, the case of petitioner is that of further enquiry and he deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in F.I.R.; that specific role has been attributed to him; that he caused injuries on the person of Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. with a 'Sota' as a result of which his hand was fractured and that weapon of offence is yet be recovered from him.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused caused injuries on the persons of Ghulam Mustafa, complainant and Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. As per F.I.R. petitioner caused injuries on the right hand of Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. with a sota'. According to M.L.R. there is fracture on the right hand of Iftikhar Anjum, P.W. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fide on the part of complainant or police. In these circumstances I do not find it a fit case for grant or pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and application brought by him is accordingly dismissed.
H.B.T./M-393/L Bail refused.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed Jarar Waesia Zarar vs The State & another 2020 SHC 1064