MUHAMMAD IRSHAD vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Irshad, who was charged under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly inflicting a knife injury on the complainant's forearm. The petitioner's previous bail applications were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Mansehra. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the injury and the statutory punishment prescribed for the offense. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the injury was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body and that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court established the principle that where an offense is punishable by imprisonment not exceeding three years and payment of Daman, and the accused is neither a previous convict nor a hardened criminal, bail should be granted as a matter of course, particularly when the accused is no longer required for further investigation.
- Does an offense under Section 337-F(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the injury caused is on a non-vital part of the body and the accused is not a previous convict?
- Should bail be granted when the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Having been involved in case registered vide F.I.R. No,308 on 13-8-1999 under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. In Police Station Saddar Mansehra, the petitioner submitted an application for his release on bail in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mansehra but his application was rejected vide order, dated 8-9-1999. He, thereafter, moved a similar application in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra but his application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra vide order, dated 13-9-1999. Now the petitioner has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13-8-1999 complainant Ali Mardan hired taxi from Mansehra Bazar. When he reached near his house, petitioner Muhammad Irshad with Kala and Qazi were waiting for him. On seeing the complainant, petitioner gave Chhuri blow on the right fore-arm of the complainant and Kala gave stick blow to him. The complainant was rescued by the taxi-driver.
Motive for the offence as stated by the complainant is that accused who are brothers of his daughter-in-law, Rubina were annoyed with the complainant for providing maintenance to the widow and children of his deceased son Siraj Ali.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully.
4. I tend to grant bail to the accused-petitioner on the ground that the injury sustained by the complainant is on the non-vital part of the body, i,e, right fore-arm. Medical report is silent as to whether the injury was dangerous to his life or not. The offence with which the accused-petitioner is charged is punishable with imprisonment of three years and also payment of Daman, as such the same does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner, as per record of the case, is neither previous convict nor dangerous criminal. The occurrence took place due to minor family dispute. As per F.I.R. Only one Chhuri blow was given by the petitioner and though the complainant being an old man was at the mercy of the accused, the act of giving blow was not repeated. The complainant has sustained injury on his fore-arm which falls under kind of Badi'ah under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. Entailing punishment for payment of Daman and imprisonment which may extend to 3 years as Tazir. Accused being neither a previous convict nor habitual, hardened, desperate or dangerous criminal and he was no more required for further investigation is entitled to bail. Reliance is placed on Aurangzeb v. The State and another 1999 PCr.LJ 230.
5. For the foregoing reasons I accept the application and allow bail to the petitioner on furnishing bail bonds in the sum-of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Mansehra who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means.