LIAQAT ALI alias PAPPA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Liaqat Ali alias Pappa, who was charged under sections 324, 337-F(vi), 337-F(i), 337-L(ii), 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving a sharp-edged weapon injury to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations, the medical evidence, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a direct role in causing a chest injury, which was corroborated by medical evidence and the complainant's statement. The court determined that the offence prima facie attracted section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a sentence of up to ten years, thereby bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that bail is generally refused in cases falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Does an offence punishable by up to ten years fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the refusal of bail the general rule in cases where the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), 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 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Liaqat Ali alias Pappa has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,276 registered at Police Station Borewala, District Vehari on 29-8-2001 for offences under sections 324/337-F(vi)/337-F(i)/ 337-L(ii)/148/149/34, P.P.C. After the investigation, according to the police record, the challan has been sent up under sections 337-F(vi)(i)/337-L(ii)/34, P.P.C.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that while armed with a Chhuri he, caused a blow on the chest of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 1-10-2001 and is in judicial lock-up.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the findings of the D,S.P, Circle Burewal it was the complainant party which was aggressor and in fact the accused snatched the weapons from the complainant party and thereafter caused injuries. He has also argued that Chhuri was not recovered from the petitioner and in fact a `Surya' has been planted on the petitioner by the police. It has also been stated that five out of the eight accused were declared innocent during investigation, therefore, the F.I.R. Has lost its sanctity and it was a case of further inquiry. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has argued that the injury caused by the petitioner on the chest of Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Was declared lirrah-e-Jaffah' as it was on the trunk of the body. He has also argued that because of this injury P.W. Muhammad Ramzan had to undergo surgery and in the circumstances the petitioner did not deserve to be released on bail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has adopted the line of argument of the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record including medical certificate. The matter was reported to the police without any loss of. Time; the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injury to P.W. Muhammad Ramzan; the occurrence took place on 29-8-2001 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W. Could make his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. On 20-9-2001. In his statement he has fully supported the version of the F.I.R. The medico-legal report also shows that an injury by a sharp-edged weapon was caused on the chest of P.W. Muhammad Ramzan. Prima facie, the provisions of section 337-D, P.P.C. Are attracted in the circumstances of the case which is punishable up to ten years. Reasonable grounds exist to connect the petitioner with the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. If the grant of bail is a rule in offences which do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Then refusal of bail is also a rule in cases where prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Is attracted.
5. For what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
Bail application disallowed.