DILSHAD MASIH and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Dilshad Masih and others, who were indicted in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of their interim anticipatory bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the complainant had suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner, Dilshad Masih, in the First Information Report, and noted a significant delay of approximately ten hours in reporting the incident to the police. Furthermore, the petitioners had been consistently cooperating with the investigation, and no incriminating articles were recovered from them. Holding that the petitioners' arrest was not vital for the prosecution's cause, the Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a counter-version exists, injuries are suppressed by the complainant, and the accused is cooperating with the investigation, the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is warranted.
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the First Information Report constitute valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is the arrest of an accused necessary when the accused has been consistently joining the investigation and no recoveries are pending?
- Does a significant delay in reporting an incident to the police affect the entitlement of the accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This order shall be read in continuation of my order dated 25-9-2001. Petitioners along with Younis alias Pappu are indicted in Crime Report No,273 of 2000 dated 3-8-2001 under sections 337- A(i)/337- A(ii)/337-L(2) , P.P. C . Registered against them with Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore at the instance of Yousuf Masih resident of Shandara. Occurrence of the alleged incident took place on 9-7-2001 at 12-10 a.m. And the matter was reported to the police on 3-8-2001 at 12-20 a.m.
(night). Petitioners are alleged to have held the complainant in their clasp from behind and thereafter delivered fist blows on his person. Then bricks were also delivered by them on his person.
Petitioners feeling imminent arrest at the hands of the police, approached a learned Sessions Judge Lahore through their application for bail before arrest who made over the same to a learned Additional Sessions Judge for its disposal in accordance with law. The said learned Judge declined relief to the petitioners through his, order dated 17-9-2001 containing variety of reasons for refusal thereof. Now they have approached this Court through the instant petition seeking same relief.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this application submits that the complainant is resident of Shandara and it was he who had initiated attack upon Dilshad by means of a Chhurri and inflicted injury on his right hand. He was examined for his injuries by a Medical Officer who issued Medico-Legal Report No,G.P.45/5645. W.S.01, in lieu thereof. He received two injuries. Medico- legal report of Yousuf Masih reveals that he suffered five injuries by means of a blunt weapon. He submits that counter-version was raised which is also being investigated by the police and Yousuf Masih is not making himself available. He is avoiding to join the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that occurrence of the alleged incident involves two versions and the petitioners have been regularly joining the investigation and no recovery could be effected either from their possession or at their instance, that allegations are of doubtful character. He further argues that occurrence had taken place in front of their house and factum of aggression committed by the complainant is self-evident.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State after due consultation of relevant record submits that names of the petitioners figure in the first information report. Specific role has_ been attributed to them and that complainant cannot be considered as an aggressor.
4. Both the sides have been heard at length. Admittedly injuries sustained by Dilshad Masih have been suppressed in the first information report. There is about ten hours delay in reporting the matter to the police. The petitioners have been regularly joining the investigation. No incriminating articles could be recovered from them and no further offence is to be discovered from them. Their arrest under these circumstances is not absolutely 'vital for any cause of the prosecution.
5. For all these reasons interim anticipatory bail already allowed to the petitioner is hereby confirmed. The petitioners are directed to associate themselves with the investigation of the case as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency through valid written orders.
Interim anticipatory .