ZAMAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zaman, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to him and the status of the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner was attributed a single blow on a non-vital part of the victim, and noted that the identity of the assailant responsible for that specific injury was unclear, rendering the case a matter of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court held that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the investigation was complete, and all co-accused had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, directing the release of the petitioner subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that bail is appropriate where the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause and investigation is complete.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the uncertainty regarding which accused caused a specific injury constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Should bail be granted when the investigation is complete and all co-accused are already on bail?
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks a bail in a case registered vide F. I. R. No. 185 dated 21-6-2000 under sections 337/F(iv), 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(i), 148/149, P.P.C. Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R, briefly stated is that on the fateful day M/s. Bashir Ahmad, Zaman, Muhammad Tufail and Shah Muhammad armed with Sotas attacked the complainant party. It is alleged that Bashir caused three Sota blows to Khushi Muhammad, Shah Muhammad caused Sota blow to complainant's brother, Munir Ahmad caused injury to Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Zanulan petitioner caused Sota blow which landed on the left calf of Khushi Muhammad. Muhammad Tufail gave Sota blow which also hit left calf of Khushi Muhammad and latter he fell down. All the accused belaboured him thereafter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of three days; that only one injury is attributed to the petitioner which is on non-vital part of the injured; that all the co---accused are on bail and petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail by submitting that the injured received 21 injuries and there is no justification for the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed the petition but did not deny that the case insofar as the petitioner is concerned does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Heard.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is attributed a single blow on the calf of injured Khushi Muhammad. The calf injury is also attributed to Tufail. It is not clear as to who actually caused this injury. The case on that score would become a matter of further inquiry. Even otherwise the offence as alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the investigation is complete. All the remaining co-accused are on bail.
7. For what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.