MUNIR AHMED Versus State
This petition was brought before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 334, 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Dunyapur, District Lodhran. The petitioner contended that an unexplained delay occurred in lodging the FIR, that he was falsely implicated due to background litigation, that Section 334 had been deleted during investigation, and that a co-accused had already been admitted to bail. The High Court observed that the petitioner was not armed with a knife during the occurrence, the alleged injury to the ear was caused by biting, and no weapon was recovered. Furthermore, the ASP (Investigation) found Section 334 inapplicable, rendering the remaining applicable offences non-prohibitory under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material and that the matter fell within the scope of further inquiry, the High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Whether causing an injury by biting attracts Section 334 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or falls under offences outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the case requires further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted on the ground of parity when a co-accused has already been released on bail and no recovery remains to be made from the accused?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant petition the petitioner has sought for his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.9, dated 7‑1‑2004 registered under sections 334/337‑A(ii)/337‑L(ii)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Saddar Dunyapur District Lodhran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was unexplained delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. which casts grave doubt in the veracity of the prosecution. Further submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated by landlord due to previous litigation between the parties that previously the father of the complainant namely Kandal got registered as case under section 302/34, P.P.C. against the petitioner, his mother and other close relatives for committing murder of one Lal Muhammad in which petitioner was acquitted and was now pursuing the case of co‑accused pending before the High Court. Further submits that section 334, P.P.C. had been deleted during the investigation; that co- accused Tanvir had already been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran; that petitioner is no more required by the police and is behind the bars for the last about four months.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has strongly opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. Perusal of the police file shows that the petitioner was not armed with knife at the time of occurrence. He had injured the ear of the complainant by biting and according to the ASP (Investigation) section 334, P.P.C. is not attracted in the instant case and according to the prosecution case falls under section 337‑A(ii)/337‑L(ii) read with section 34, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It has further been noticed that no knife had been recovered from the petitioner although he had undergone the full length of judicial remand. Petitioner was arrested on 6‑2‑2004 and since then he is behind the bars. He is no more required by the police for further investigation.
5. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the opinion that the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further, inquiry. Prosecution is not in possession of incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of this offence. Co accused of the petitioner had already been released on bail, therefore, I am of the view that petitioner is also entitled to bail. Accordingly I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3;00,000 (three lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑686/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2840