SHABEER AHMAD alias SHIBLI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 337-F(v) read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur. The core legal question is whether an accused charged with an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be denied bail due to exceptional circumstances. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the offense falling outside the prohibitory clause, bail may be refused in extraordinary circumstances, such as the petitioner inflicting injuries resulting in permanent disability and multiple surgeries to the complainant. The court laid down the principle that the exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail in non-prohibitory offenses are not exhaustive, and the gravity and nature of the injury can justify the denial of bail. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with observations regarding moving for bail afresh under certain conditions.
- Whether bail can be refused for an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Are the extraordinary and exhaustive circumstances for refusing bail as outlined in Tariq Bashir's case exhaustive?
- Does causing a permanent disability through a physical injury constitute an exceptional circumstance to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused seek bail afresh before the trial court after the recording of material evidence or upon delay in the trial?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner along with others is accused of an offence under section 337-F(v)/109, P.P.C. In a case registered vide F.I.R. No,119 of 1997 at Police Station Channi Goth, District Bahawalpur. He allegedly caused injuries to Ikram Ullah complainant due to previous enmity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the offence was not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And as a matter of rule the petitioner was entitled to bail. He relied upon the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 and submitted that the case of the petitioner could not be considered that the exception for refusal of bail. He pointed out that the petitioner was in custody for the last about five months.
3. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that Ikram Ullah complainant had been operated upon thrice because of the fracture of tibia bone, the injury caused by the petitioner. He submitted that the complainant was given merciless beating and as a result of the injury caused by the petitioner he had become permanently disabled. He relied upon the case of Abdul Hameed etc. v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 700 and submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner was not entitled to bail. He also relied upon the case of Sher Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen and others 1991 SCM R 239.
4. No doubt, the petitioner is charged with an offence under section 337-F(v), P.P.C. Which is not covered by the prohibition contained in A section 497, Cr.P.C., but he caused such an injury to the complainant which made him permanently disabled. He has gone through surgery many times just to be on his legs again, but perhaps he will have to remain on crutches. It is now well- established that even regarding offences not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The Court can decline to admit an accused to bail where there are exceptional circumstances. Reliance is placed upon the case of Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred the case of Tariq Bashir to show that the case of the petitioner was not covered by the exceptional circumstances highlighted in the said case. The extraordinary and exceptional circumstances given in Tariq Bashir's case are not exhaustive. In this case the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Magistrate considered this aspect of the case in detail. The injury caused by the petitioner is of such a nature that his release on bail at this stage is not desirable.
6. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed having no merits.
' However, the petitioner can move for bail afresh in the trial Court after recording of some material evidence or .If no progress is made in the trial within the next three months.
Cited by 8 cases
- MUHAMMAD ILYAS vs THE STATE and another 2010 P Cr. L J 379
- JUMO and anothers vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 3004
- MUKHTAR AHMAD vs HAQ NAWAZ and 2 o,hers 2004 P C R L J 458
- MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus HAQ NAWAZ 2004 PCrLJ 458
- RASHEED AHMED and 3 others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2448
- MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Alias ZAFFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE 2001 MLD 287
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE 2002 PCRLJ 110
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 108