KHAWAR FAREED vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 269 of 1997 registered under sections 302, 324, 452, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when he was declared innocent during police investigation and the injury attributed to him fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that since the petitioner was declared innocent during investigation and the injury caused by him was classified as 'Ghyr Jaifah Badi'ah' punishable with a maximum of three years rigorous imprisonment, his case did not prima facie fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal is an exception, and the question of sharing common intention must be determined by the trial court after recording evidence.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent during police investigation and the attributed injury falls outside the prohibitory clause?
- Does a case where the offense is punishable with three years rigorous imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the question of sharing a common intention with co-accused be determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,269 of 1997, dated 26-5- 1997 registered under section 302/324/452/109/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precise allegation against thepetitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that he being armed with hatchet alongwith other co-accused who were armed with fire-arms formed an unlawful assembly, Ahmad Bukhsh fired at Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, husband of the complainant, whereas petitioner allegedly caused hatchet blow to one Muhammad Iqbal, P.W. And injured him.
The co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Munawar fired with his .12-bore pistol which hit Muhammad Shafee on his right shin.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and that he was declared innocent by the police during investigation only injury on the person of Muhammad Iqbal, P.W. Attributed to him was simple in nature, on the non-vital part of the body which was declared "Ghyr Jaifah Badi'ah" and is punishable with maximum three years R.I.
Finally, argues that case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. So, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And that specific role has been attributed to him. Further argues that deeper. Appreciation of the evidence at bail stage is not permissible, hence, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file minutely.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner was declared innocent by the police during investigation and with the approval of DSP, his case was recommended for discharge. Injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner on the person of Muhammad Iqbal is on the right lower part of thigh which, according to medico-legal report, is declared as "Ghyr Jaifah Badi'ah" and is punishable with three years R.I. The question of sharing common intention by the petitioner alongwith other co-accused can only be determined by trial Court after recording evidence. Prima facie, case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal is exception accordingly, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs, 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- GHAFFAR AHMAD And 2 Others vs THE STATE 2001 MLD 1081