ABDUL RASHID vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 305 of 2002 registered under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Abbas Nagar, District Bahawalpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given that the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause and the challan had not been submitted despite the petitioner being in judicial custody for a significant period. The Lahore High Court held that since the charged offense under section 337-A(ii) did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the challan had not been submitted in court, the case was a fit one for the grant of bail. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail should generally be granted when an accused is in prolonged custody without submission of the challan for an offense falling outside the prohibitory clause.
- Whether an offense under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to submit a challan while the accused remains in judicial custody justify the grant of post-arrest bail for offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 305 of 2002, dated 1-12-2002, offence under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C., registered at Police Station Abbas Nagar, District Bahawalpur.
2. As per F.I.R., on 28-11-2002, petitioner alongwith his co-accused while armed with different weapons caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Saeed, complainant whereas case was registered on 1-12-2002.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case that learned trial Court had directed the complainant to appear before Medical Board for re- examination but he failed to appear, which makes the prosecution story doubtful; that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 11-1-2003 but chalan has not been submitted in Court so far and that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore petitioner deserves concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State as well as complainant have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he caused injury on the head of complainant and that F.I.R. Was lodged promptly.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care.
7. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injury on the person of complainant. The letter dated 30-1-2003 issued by Medical Superintendent, B.V. Hospital, Bahawalpur (Annexure-B) shows that injured was not produced before Board for medical examination, despite order of Court.
The offence under section 337-A(ii) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 11-1-2003 and challan has not been submitted in Court so far. As such without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs.80,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.