LATEEF and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioners, Lateef and others, who were charged under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), and 337-L(2) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving an alleged assault with a hatchet and hunters. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries inflicted and the statutory provisions involved. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioners did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had used the reverse side of the hatchet, suggesting a lack of intent to cause grievous injury. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail application, holding that discretion should be exercised in favor of the accused, particularly as they had been incarcerated for three months. The key principle laid down is that where the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail statute, the court should exercise its discretion to grant bail.
- Does the use of the reverse side of a weapon negate the intention to cause grievous hurt for the purpose of bail?
- Are offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five years considered to be outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period and the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioners seek bail in case F.I.R. No,517 of 1998 registered on 11-10-1998 with Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(iii) and 337-L(2) read with section 34, P.P.C.
2. The allegations as unfolded in the F.I.R. Recorded at the instance of Nazeer Ahmad are that his son Imran Ali came out of the fields after easing himself when he was accosted by the petitioner and his co-accused Mitthu who was armed with hunter, whereas the petitioner was armed with hatchet and Khalil co-accused was armed with hunter. First blow was given by Mitthu which hit his son Imran on his head. Mitthu and Khalil gave repeated blows to his son with their hunters. The reason for the fight as given in the F.I.R. Was an earlier fight between Imran Ali and Mitthu accused.
3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal rejected the post-arrest bail application of the petitioner on 2-12-1998.
4. Learned counsel before me has contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioner though on the vital part of the body, are simple in nature and punishable under sections 337-A(i) and 337- L(2) to 5 years and two years imprisonment respectively. It is further stated that the very fact that Latif was armed with a hatchet and did not wield the sharp side of the same but hit the injured with its reverse side shows that there was no intention to cause any injury grievous in nature.
5. Learned State Counsel has stated that all of the accused came armed with weapons in furtherance of their common intention to cause hurt, therefore, at this stage their liability cannot be sagregated.
6. I have given consideration to the arguments of both the counsel, however, I feel that since injuries attributed to the petitioners do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Discretion of bail should be extended to them, especially when they are behind the bars since last three months. Resultantly the bail application is accepted, the petitioners are enlarged on bail provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs,20,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- LIAQAT ALI vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 299
- GHIAS vs THE STATE and another 2002 YLR 523