SHAABAN vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail application arose from FIR No. 314 of 2001 registered under Sections 337(ii), 337-F(v), and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner inflicted a hatchet blow on the victim's left foot. The core legal questions were whether the absence of any sharp-edged weapon injury on the victim brought the petitioner's case within the purview of further inquiry, and whether post-arrest bail should be granted. The Lahore High Court observed that while the petitioner was alleged to have used a hatchet, the victim's medical report revealed five injuries caused solely by blunt weapons on a non-vital part of the body. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since 30-06-2001, the trial had not yet commenced despite the submission of the challan, and the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Does the absence of sharp-edged injuries corresponding to the alleged use of a hatchet bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. and the trial has not commenced?
- Whether conflict between the FIR allegations and the medical report entitles the accused to bail pending trial?
- Section 337(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(ii), 337/F(v) and 452/34, P.P.C., Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal,
2. According to the allegations contained in the F.I.R., petitioner caused hatchet blow on the left foot of Khan. Learned counsel submits that previous bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 22-10-2001, as sufficient period had not elapsed by that time regarding his detention, therefore, he has filed this second petition for bail. Submits that medical report of Khan alleged victim does not show that he received any injury with sharp-edged weapon attributed to petitioner and as such his case falls within the purview of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Khan victim received five injuries and all of them are with blunt weapon. Allegation of the complainant that petitioner caused injury to Khan with hatchet on his foot a non-vital part of body in absence of any sharp-edged weapon injury, prima facie, brings his case within the purview of further enquiry. Petitioner is in jail since 30-6-2001. The challan has been submitted but the trial has not commenced yet. Offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.0 .
6. For the reasons stated above petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.