MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Ashraf seeking post-arrest bail in respect of offences under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide F.I.R. No. 132 at Police Station Shah Ghareeb, District Narowal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., lack of premeditation, use of an unconventional weapon, discrepancies in the medical evidence regarding the duration of injuries, suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party, and the acceptance of a cross-version by the investigating agency collectively bring the case within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Whether delayed registration of an F.I.R., coupled with suppressed injuries of the accused party and a plausible cross-version, warrants further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the use of an unconventional weapon in a sudden flare-up without premeditation justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be withheld by way of premature punishment when the investigation has been finalized and a challan submitted?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J .---Through this petition Muhammad Ashraf petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 132 registered at Police Station Shah Ghareeb, District Narowal on 6-7-2009 in respect of offences under sections 337-A(i)/337-A(iii)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a delay of eleven days. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the petitioner. It appears that there was a sudden flare up between the parties without any premeditation and on the basis of that flare up the situation had deteriorated at the spot and had degenerated into violence. A bare look at the site-plan of the place of occurrence shows that the place of occurrence was quite close to a house belonging to the accused party whereas the house of the complainant was nowhere near the place of occurrence so much so that it had found no mention in the site plan at all. The Medico-legal Certificate issued in respect of Abdul Sattar complainant shows that the complainant had been medically examined after about nineteen hours of receipt of his injuries but the duration of injuries opined by the doctor was about twelve hours which created some dent in the stated time of occurrence claimed by the complainant. The weapon allegedly used by the petitioner was a brick which was an unconventional weapon and this aspect of the matter further confirms lack of any premeditation on the part of the accused party. It is available on the record that two accused persons, including the present petitioner, had also sustained injuries during the same incident and those injuries were on their heads and chest. It is unfortunate that any information about the accused party also getting injured in the same incident was completely suppressed and no mention of the same had been made in the F.I.R. lodged in this case. The petitioners party had advanced a cross-version of the same incident and I have been informed that the said cross-version had been accepted by the investigating agency. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a Challan has been submitted and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-672/L Bail granted.