MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Alias ZAFFAR IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Zafar, who was charged under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, having been granted bail by a Judicial Magistrate, subsequently had that bail cancelled by an Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the allegations of causing injuries with an iron bar, given that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while the grant of bail in non-prohibitory offences is generally the rule and refusal is the exception, this is not an inflexible principle. Finding that the petitioner was nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with a specific role in causing injuries resulting in fracture and dislocation, the Court declined to grant bail. The judgment reaffirms that judicial discretion in bail matters remains subject to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, even for non-prohibitory offences.
- Is the grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an inflexible rule?
- Can bail be refused in a non-prohibitory offence where the accused is specifically nominated for causing serious injuries?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337(5), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.94 of 2000 under sections 337- A(ii), 337-F(v), P.P.C. At Police Station Abbas Nagar District Bahawalpur.
2. As per F.I.R. Petitioners alongwith others launched criminal assault upon the complainant party as a result of which complainant Muhammad Hanif was injured. The petitioner and his other co- accused Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Akhtar were earlier granted bail after arrest by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide his order, dated 13-6-2000 but later on the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 26-8-2000 cancelled the bail of the petitioner. Hence the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause; that petitioner's father Muhammad Bakhsh had also filed a private complaint against the complainant of the instant F.I.R.; that the injuries alleged to have been caused by 'the petitioner to the complainant are self-inflicted; that Muhammad Bakhsh co-accused, alleged to have caused an injury on the head of the complainant by hatchet, was declared innocent during the investigation conducted by the police, that the alleged place of occurrence is in joint Khata and as a matter of fact complainant had injured Muhammad Bakhsh father of the petitioner and his injuries were suppressed in the instant F.I.R.; that the petitioner had remained in jail for 15 days earlier and now after the cancellation of bail by Additional Sessions Judge he is behind the bars for the last two months.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State and the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that petitioner had caused grave injury to the complainant resulting in fracture and dislocation of bone and it is not an inflexible rules that in all cases of the offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted. Reliance has been placed on 1999 PCr.LJ 1348.
5. I have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and gone through the judgment cited at the bar. The petitioner has been nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injuries with an iron bar; no doubt a copy of the complaint filed by petitioner's father against the present complainant and others has been placed on record but it has not been shown that in the said complaint, the accused named therein have been summoned by the learned Magistrate. No doubt it is well-settled that grant of bail in cases of offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is a rule and declining a prayer in such cases is an exception. In the instant case as I have earlier noticed that the petitioner, prima facie, is responsible for causing injuries to the complainant with an iron bar resulting in fracture and dislocation of bone. Even if dislocation has not been opined the offence under section 337(5) may be made applicable but the fact would remain there that injuries were found present on the person of the injured complainant.