MUNAWAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 314 of 2001 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 452 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the medical report discrepancies, the rule of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail, and the non-prohibitory nature of the alleged offences. The Lahore High Court held that since the injuries attributed to the petitioner did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the medical report did not fully corroborate the ocular account, a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail, and the trial was likely to take a considerable period, the petitioner made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail may be granted when offences fall outside the prohibitory clause, statutory delay is anticipated, and the rule of consistency applies due to bail granted to a co-accused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused with a similar role entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
- Can the potential delay in the conclusion of the trial serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,314 of 2001 dated 3-6-2001 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 452/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Noor Shah District, Shaiwal.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith the co-accused Yasin and Shaban launched attack on Khan Muhammad. He has caused one hatchet injury on the head of Khan Muhammad and another handle below on his right eye.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the medical report does not corroborate the allegations of the complainant. He further submits that Shaban co-accused with similar allegation has been granted bail by this Court on 11-2-2002, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail.
5. Heard. Record perused. Khan Muhammad has not received any injury on the right eye according to the Medico Legal Report. The injury on forehead attributed to the petitioner has not fractured any bone of the victim. The offence alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is in jail for the last about nine months. His co-accused having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court. The complete challan has not been submitted so far. The conclusion of the trial likely to take considerable long period. Keeping in view- the aforesaid circumstances petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.