MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Muhammad Arif in a criminal case registered under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), (iv), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadder, District Kasur. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of discrepancy in medical evidence and statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. with a distinct role of causing a firearm injury, a prima facie cognizable case is made out, and deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible at the bail stage. Furthermore, the court held that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of trial delay where adjournments were sought by the defense, while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot exploit delays in trial conclusion when the adjournments were occasioned by the defense.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when specifically named in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing a firearm injury?
- Can an accused take advantage of the delay in the conclusion of the trial when the adjournments were requested by the defense?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.--- The petitioner filed this bail application for after arrest bail in F.I.R. No.199 of 2004 dated 21-5-2004 under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-F(iii), (iv), 148 and 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadder, District Kasur.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he fired with his rifle which caused injury to one Muhammad Din on his right shoulder.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation against the petitioner is of firing with rifle but M.L.R. shows that injuries were 1 x 1 c.m. deep. This kind of injury can be caused by a pellet of .12 bore gun and not with the rifle. He submits that case against the petitioner is of further inquiry. He submits that petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than one year, but the trial has not concluded yet.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He was declared proclaimed offender. After his arrest, he had been found guilty by the Investigating Officer.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant in the separate bail application of co-accused produced record during the course of arguments which shows that on the previous dates of hearing evidence of the prosecution was available in the Court but the case was adjourned on request of accused party. In this regard, reference is made to orders dated 26-11-2005, 10-12-2005, 17-12-2005. The learned counsel for the complainant also submitted some more F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner is also mentioned.
6. The name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing fire-arm injury to one person. Apparently, a cognizable case has been made out against him. At this stage, deeper appreciation of evidence is not possible. Prima facie, the record submitted in bail application of two co-accused which has been withdrawn, suggest that prosecution witnesses were available in the previous dates of hearing but evidence could not be recorded on request of the learned counsel for the accused/petitioners. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of delay in conclusion of the trial. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within three months.
This bail application is, however, dismissed for reasons discussed above.
H.B.T./M-348/L Bail refused.