MUHAMMAD MANSHA vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises out of FIR No. 207 of 1999 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Fateh Shah, Burewala, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail after being refused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns whether the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused during the occurrence entitles him to the concession of bail on the grounds of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's failure to explain the grievous injuries, specifically a fractured metacarpal bone sustained by the petitioner, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the identity of the aggressor remains a question for trial. The court laid down the principle that the suppression of injuries on the person of an accused by the prosecution creates sufficient doubt to warrant post-arrest bail.
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person during the same incident by the prosecution entitle the accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry when the question of who was the aggressor remains to be determined by the trial court?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when his further incarceration is no longer required for investigation purposes and no further recovery is to be made?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No, 207 of 1999, dated 2-9-1999, under section 337-A(ii)/337- L(ii)/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Fateh Shah, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari, at the behest of one Munir Ahmad.
2. The petitioner along with others while armed with a hatchet and Sotas is alleged to have launched an assault on the person of the complainant and produced as many as six injuries on his person. Out of the above said six wounds, only one incised wound is available on skull of the victim of assault.
3. After being arrested on 18-10-1999, the petitioner preferred an application for grant of post-arrest bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, who declined this relief by virtue of his order, dated 7-12-1999 on the basis of multifarious reasons embodied in the order itself. Hence, this petition before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he also sustained two injuries at the hands of the complainant and his compatriots during the course of incident and was duly examined by the Medical Authority on 3-9-1999, which are located at his left eyebrow and left hand. Metacarpal bone of left hand of the petitioner is fractured. He contends that these injuries have been suppressed by the complainant side and the offence with which the petitioner stood charged is not punishable with ten years or more, and, as such, he is entitled to the relief prayed for.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner figures in the First Information Report and his fullest participation in the commission of crime is established through recovery of hatchet allegedly used by him for causing injury upon head of the complainant.
6. Having heard both the sides and going through the record, I find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner have force. The factum of fracture of metacarpal bone of left hand of the petitioner is proved and could not be controverted by the prosecution side. No explanation regarding these injuries has been offered by the prosecution. Suppression of grievous injuries on the person of the accused has always been viewed with grave suspicion by the superior Courts of Pakistan and case of the petitioner would call for further inquiry. Who is the aggressor or aggressed, is a material question to be resolved by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence in the case. Until then, case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The petitioner is no longer required for investigation purposes. No further offence is to be discovered from him and his further incarceration is not likely to serve any useful purpose to the prosecution.
7. For all that has been said earlier, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner is directed to make himself available during the trial proceedings.