MUHAMMAD BILAL Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 495/2017 registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mansoorabad, Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of firing shots resulting in injuries, was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting a significant, unexplained 23-day delay in lodging the FIR, which suggests deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the injuries sustained were categorized under section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, carrying a maximum punishment of three years, and the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remains a matter for trial. The Court emphasized that the investigation is complete, the petitioner is a first-time offender, and the offence is triable by a Magistrate. The key principle laid down is that when two inferences are possible, the one favoring the accused must be drawn, and the mere heinousness of an offence is insufficient to deny bail if the case otherwise warrants it.
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the heinousness of an offence a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it on merits?
- When two inferences are possible regarding the facts of a case, which inference should the court draw in bail proceedings?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 347, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Bilal has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.495/2017 dated 05.06.2017 under sections 324, 34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Mansoorabad District Faisalabad.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation of evidence is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed that although the petitioner is named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of 23 days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired two shots with his pistol which landed on left and right thigh of injured Tafazal Razzaq, brother of the complainant which injuries were declared by the Doctor as "Jurrah ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah" under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which carry maximum punishment up to three years as Ta'zir As the injuries on the person of injured Tafazal Razzaq are on his thigh, therefore, the attraction of section 324, P.P.C. shall be determined by the learned trial court after recoding of evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 04.10.2017. He is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Offence with which the petitioner is charged is triable by Magistrate Section-30 who is competent to pass sentence for seven years only and whether it is a fit case to be sent to the Court of Session under section 347, Cr.P.C. or not for enhance imprisonment shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. It is also settled law that when there are two inferences, the one in favour of accused shall be drawn. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
MQ/M-41/L Bail granted.