MUHAMMAD FAROOQ Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Farooq, in relation to two separate criminal cases registered as F.I.R. Nos. 89 and 90 of 2003 at Police Station Burewala. The allegations against the petitioner involve obstructing police officials during the discharge of their duties, specifically rescuing an arrested person and causing injuries to police personnel, including a nasal bone fracture. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations and the injuries sustained by police officials. Upon review, the Court observed that all other co-accused nominated in both cases had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court determined that while the injury to the police official might have resulted from the petitioner's reckless act, there was no evidence of intentional harm or an intention to commit murder. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail applications, holding that the petitioner should be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, emphasizing the lack of clear intent to cause grievous harm.
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused in the same criminal cases have already been enlarged on bail?
- Does an injury caused by a reckless act, absent clear intent to commit murder, warrant the denial of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted to an accused charged with obstructing police officials and causing injury during the discharge of their duties?
ORDER
This order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous No.1354‑B of 2003. Muhammad Farooq (petitioner) seeks post‑arrest bail in two criminal cases registered at Police Station Burewala on 2‑3‑2003 bearing F.I..Rs. Nos.89 and 90 of 2003.
2. F.I.R. No.89 of 2003 is based on the statement of Ahmad Din, A.S.‑I. According to it, the complainant accompanied by other police officials went to "F" Block to arrest the accused in case F.I.R. No.88 of 2003. Goshi (accused) was found standing in front of his house: The police arrested him. He raised alarm, which attracted Farooq, Nadim, Muhammad Asif, Khaliq, Muhammad Younis, Salina, Samina, Robina. Intizar, Majeed Hussain and six other. persons to the spot. Farooq (petitioner) was armed with a wooden beam, while the rest were carrying Sotas. The accused alleged rescued Goshi forcibly. The allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted wooden beam on the head of the complainant while the rest continued brick‑batting.
3. F.I.R. No.90 of 2003 has been lodged by Kamran,. War, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station City, Burewala. This incident is stated to have taken place at 10‑45 p.m. when the complainant with a heavy contingent of police went to cause the arrest of accused in case F.I.R. No.89 of 2003. According to the F.I.R., aforesaid accused including Muhammad Arshad alias Bhaba offered resistence when the police arrested Intizar (Accused). They resorted to brick‑batting as a result of which Zafar Iqbal P.C. No.790, sustained fracture‑of his nasal bone at the hands of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police implicated the petitioner and his. entire family including the female falsely and as a matter of fact the accused had been subjected to violence at the behest of, the complainant of the case F.I.R. No. 88 of 2003 and planted the present two cases in order to justify their savage act. He submitted that as many as five persons including the petitioner received as many as.50 visible injuries on their person.
5. I have considered the arguments and have perused the record. All the accused nominated in both the cases have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is alleged to have hurled a brick‑bat causing a fracture of nasal bone of Zafar Iqbal, F.C. The injury may be the result of the reckless act of the petitioner but he cannot be said to have caused intentionally. The facts of the case do not show that the petitioner and his companions had the intention to commit murder. I, therefore, accept both the applications and enlarge the accused/petitioner on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand with one surety to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate, in each case.
H.B.T./M‑2225/L Bail granted.