GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE
This is a criminal bail application wherein the applicant/accused sought pre-arrest bail in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 54 of 2000 registered at Police Station Sobhodero, under sections 337-A(i)-(ii), 34, and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail when he is specifically nominated in the F.I.R., has been assigned the specific role of causing a hatchet blow to a vital part of the injured person's body resulting in an injury certified as Shajjah-e-Madihah, and where a motive has been duly disclosed. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to pre-arrest bail simply because the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as considerations for pre-arrest bail differ and sufficient prima facie material connects the accused to the crime. The interim pre-arrest bail was consequently recalled and the application dismissed.
- Whether an accused nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing a hatchet injury to a vital part of the body is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in every case?
- What are the differentiating considerations for the grant of bail before arrest versus bail after arrest?
- Section 337-A(I), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicant/accused is facing trial in a criminal case before the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M.-II, Gambat under section 337-A(I)-(ii) read with sections 34 and 504, P.P.C. The case arose out of F.I.R. No.54 of 2000 of Police Station Sobhodero.
The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by the complainant Muhammad Chhutal in his F.I.R., dated 18-5-2000 are reproduced herein below:---
"I report that there is dispute between me and Ghulam Abbas party over land. Yesterday in the evening, I and my brother Bahadur diverted the water in our land. We were watering the land when at about 12-30 in the night Ghulam Abbas,
2. Imam Bux,
3. Munir,
4. Hakim, all sons of Khuda Bux Kalhoro resident of Qaimuddin Kalhoro came. Ghulam Abbas had a hatchet and others had lathies in their hands. They abused us and said that as to why we are watering the land? We replied that the land belongs to us and they have no right to prevent us. Whereupon Ghulam Abbas caused back side hatchet blow to my brother Bahadur on his head and other accused caused stick blows which hit him on his head and other. parts of the body. They also caused me 'soti' blows. We raised cries, on which my brother Qurban Ali Kalhoro and other villagers came running. The accused on seeing them ran away towards their houses. I narrated the entire facts .to the P.Ws. Due to odd hours of night we stayed 'at home. In the morning, I alongwith my brother Bahadur proceeded for lodging the report. On the way one Mahesro son of Khuda Bux met us. He also abused us. Now I have come for report. The above named accused due to dispute over land have caused injuries to my brother Bahadur and to me. Justice be done. Letter be given."
The applicant/accused applied for bail before arrest and his bail plea was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gambat by order, dated 4-7-2000.
I have heard Mr. Abdul Razak Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused and Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Memon, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. for the State. The latter opposes the bail plea of the applicant/accused.
The perusal of material placed on record shows that the name of the applicant/accused transpires in the F.I.R.. and he has been ascribed role of causing hatchet blow on the head of the injured. The injury on the head of the injured has been declared Shajjah-e-Madihah by the Medical Officer. The head is vital part of the body. The motive has been disclosed in F.I.R. The considerations for grant of bail before arrest are different from the bail after arrest. Merely because the offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years, is no ground for grant of bail in each and every case.
Consequently, I am of the considered view that the applicant/accused is not entitled to bail. The order of, interim prearrest bail granted to the applicant/accused on 21-2-2001 is hereby recalled and bail application stands dismissed.
M.B.A./64-A/K Application allowed