MUHAMMAD AKMAL Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Akmal, who was charged under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i)(ii)(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing knife injuries to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the injuries, and the duration of the petitioner's incarceration. The Court observed that none of the offences charged fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had been incarcerated for over one and a half years, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused has been detained for a significant period, the concession of bail is generally warranted.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a significant period of pre-trial incarceration justify the grant of bail for non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, J.--- Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 101 of 2005, dated 11-5-2005 under sections 337-A(i)/ 337-F(i) (ii) (iii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan. Through this miscellaneous petition he seeks post-arrest bail in the said case.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that on 9-5-2005 at about 8-00 a.m. the complainant was coming from Band Bosan on a bus. The bus was overloaded, therefore, he sat on the roof of the bus. When the bus reached Shell Petrol Pump, Muhammad Akmal, petitioner, who was standing there, also came on the roof of bus and raised Lalkara that he has to teach a lesson to the complainant. Thereafter, he caused many blows with Churri to him. Due to injuries caused by the petitioner the complainant became unconscious and fell on the roof of bus.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. and for which no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant; that the nature of all the injuries were simple except one injury; that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body; that most of the offences are bailable; that the petitioner was arrested on 17-5-2005 and more than one and half year has lapsed; that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner is non-convict. It is further submitted that one of the eye-witnesses namely Muhammad Ali has given an affidavit that he was not present at the time of occurrence.
4. The bail petition has been opposed by the learned State counsel. .It-is submitted by the State counsel that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. with a specific role; the recovery of knife has been effected from him and the challan has been submitted on 25-5-2005.
5. Arguments heard and record perused. None of the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last one and half year. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. This petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-203/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.