ABDUL SATTAR vs THE STATE
The petitioner Abdul Sattar sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 337-F(ii) and (vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, after his bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether bail should be withheld for offences carrying punishments not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically where injuries involved a fracture. The Lahore High Court held that since the maximum punishments for the alleged offences were two and seven years, thereby falling outside the prohibitory clause, withholding bail would amount to pre-trial punishment. The Court laid down the principle that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail ought not to be withheld as a form of punishment before the guilt of the accused is legally established, leading to the acceptance of the bail petition subject to surety bonds.
- Whether bail can be withheld in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does withholding bail for an offence carrying a maximum sentence outside the prohibitory clause amount to pre-trial punishment?
- Is bail a matter of right in cases where the maximum punishment does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abdul Sattar petitioner, an accused in a case under section 337-F(ii) (vi) registered against him with Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal has moved this application for grant of post-arrest bail, after refusal of the same by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
2. Lal Din father of the petitioner and Abdul Latif injured exchanged hot words with each other over the matter of causing damage to Barseem crop-of Abdul Latif. The petitioner armed with Sota raising Lalkara caused injuries to Abdul Latif.
3. The petitioner on the sixth day of his arrest was allowed bail by learned Magistrate 1st Class, Sahiwal vide order, dated 31-3-1993, which was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide order, dated 15-2-1994.
4. Bail is urged on the ground that maximum sentence provided for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner being three years and seven years not falling within the prohibitory clause, the withholding of bail on the ground that it was granted shortly after the arrest was not justified.
5. The grant of bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that bail in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Cannot be claimed as of right.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both sides at length and perused the record.
7. Abdul Latif sustained two injuries with blunt weapon and as per X-ray report, there was a fracture of fifth meta corpal bone. The maximum punishment for an offence under section 337-F(ii) and (vi) provided is two years and seven years respectively, in addition to the punishment of Daman, which may or may not be imposed by the Court at the time of recording conviction in a case. Hence despite there being a fracture, withholding of bail shall amount to punish a person before finding him guilty of the commission of an offence.
' Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 8 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.
Cited by 3 cases
- Imtiaz Ali vs State etc PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1062
- BUXIAL SARYO vs THE STATE 2002 MLD 1260
- SALEEM KHAN/Accused vs THE STATE 1999 P Cr. L J 140