BHAMBHO and another vs THE STATE
The applicants, Bhambho and Kaleemullah, sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 6 of 2001 registered at Police Station Drigh Bala for offences under sections 334, 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerned whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the general nature of allegations, the existence of a counter F.I.R. regarding the same incident, and the fact that the charged offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that since cross-cases were registered for the same incident, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, and the applicants had been in custody for over two months, the bail application should be granted. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, cross-cases exist, and the accused have spent a considerable period in custody.
- Whether bail should be granted when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the registration of a counter F.I.R. for the same incident impact the consideration for post-arrest bail?
- Can accused persons be released on bail after being in custody for more than two months in non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Granted subject, however, to all just Aceptions.
2. Applicants Bhambho and Kaleemullah have sought bail in a case registered as Crime No,6 of 2001 at Police Station Drigh Bala for an offence under sections 334, 337-A(i) and 337-L(ii), P.P.C.
' It is alleged in the F.I.R. That complainant Muhammad Ayoob and his family members including his wife and Mst. Sharma wife of Hafiz Saleem were present at their Well when accused Rajab, Bhambho and Kaleemullah left their cattle in their crop on which the complainant party objected whereafter Rajab gave a blow on the head of complainant with blunt side of hatchet while others gave blows to ladies. There is a counter F.I.R. Of the same incident registered as Crime No,7 of 2001 wherein accused Rajab is the complainant and the F.I.R. Shows five injuries to have been caused to the complainant.
' Learned counsel for applicants submitted that allegations are general in nature and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' Learned Assistant Advocate-General is of the view that the present applicants have caused injuries to a lady Mst. Sharma.
' It could not be denied that cross-cases have been registered for the same incident. Moreover, the offences also do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And applicants are in custody for a period of more than two months. In the circumstances the application is allowed.
Applicants be released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.