SAJJAD AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sajjad Ahmad, who was charged in an F.I.R. registered in September 2001. The allegation against the petitioner involved causing a fracture and dislocation to the complainant's left wrist using a Sota. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail, given the nature of the offense and the statutory provisions governing bail. Upon review, the Court observed that the offense charged under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception in such non-prohibitory cases. Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify denying relief, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to the furnishing of a surety bond. The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail should generally be granted for offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offenses falling outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the offense under Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Sajjad Ahmad petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F. I. R . No,213 of 2001 registered at Police Station Trinda Muhammad Panah, District Rahimyar Khan on 10-9-2001.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a Sota and gave a Sota blow on the left wrist of the complainant, which resulted into fracture and dislocation.
3. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26-9-2001 and is in judicial lock-up.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. Admittedly, the offence under section 337-F (vi), P.P.C. does not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such-like cases the grant of bail should be a rule and refusal an exception as laid down in the cases of Muhammad Ameer v. The State 1973 PCr.LJ 205, and Tariq Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34. No exceptional circumstance has been mentioned so as to refuse the bail to the petitioner. Therefore, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.