MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State
This post-arrest bail petition arose from an FIR registered under Sections 337-F(vi), 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the petitioner was accused of causing a firearm injury to the victim's left thigh. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court were whether the injury fell under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the seat of the injury and the lack of progress in the trial. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nearly a year without trial progress, the injury was on a non-vital part of the body (the thigh), and the petitioner did not repeat the fire. The Court held that the injury fell under Section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum punishment of three years as Tazir, making the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail.
- Whether a firearm injury on a non-vital part of the body, without repetition of fire, negates the prima facie intention to kill under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether an offense carrying a maximum punishment of three years as Tazir under Section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of progress in a trial while the accused remains incarcerated for a prolonged period justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEEDUR REHMAN, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 67/2008 dated 3-8-2008 under sections 337-F(vi), 324, 34 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed wish .30-bore Pistol caused fire-arm injury on Muhammad Imran on his left thigh.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year; that the challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court but there is no progress in the trial; that the whole family has been involved in this case with mala fide intention; that no eye-witness was present at the spot and the story narrated by the complainant is concocted one. It is further stated that if the prosecution version as per F.I.R. is admitted, the case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The maximum sentence of section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. is seven years and in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. It is further stated that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and the alleged recovery has been planted with the connivance of the complainant party. It is further stated that the injury as per medico legal report is self-inflicted and is on the non-vital part of the body of the injured. It is further stated that the co-accused has already been granted bail.
4. Bail petition has been opposed by the learned Assistant Prosecutor-General on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that the challan has been submitted in the Court and the motive is also alleged to the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about one year and there is no progress in the trial of the case. The injury caused by the petitioner is on the non-vital part of the body and the petitioner did not repeat the fire despite the fact to do so. The injury suffered by the victim falls within the purview of section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which is punishable with DAMAN and may also be punished with imprisonment extending to three years as Tazir. The sentence of Tazir is awarded to the offenders who are previous convict, habitual or hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal and the prosecution has not brought any material to show that the accused/petitioner suffers such attributes; therefore, the case of, the petitioner becomes that of further inquiry. Regarding award of sentence of Tazir is a matter of further inquiry. Accused is behind the bars and the co-accused has already been granted bail. Prima facie the intention to kill does not appear to be available keeping in view the seat of injury, which is on the non-vital part of the body, and non-repetition.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this bail, petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-483/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- ALLAH DITTA vs The STATE and anothers 2013 P Cr. L J 342