KHUDA BAKHSH vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 334, 336, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of causing the amputation of the complainant's left ear. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries, the evidence on record, and the status of the trial. The Court observed that the medical report confirmed the injury as Itlaf-i-Udw, thereby attracting the relevant penal sections, which fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that the challan had been submitted and a formal charge had already been framed against the accused. Considering that the trial court had already directed the conclusion of the trial within two months, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that bail is generally refused in heinous offences where the trial is actively proceeding.
- Does an offence involving Itlaf-i-Udw fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a formal charge has been framed and the trial is nearing conclusion?
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Khuda Bakhsh, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,121 dated 13-5-2002 under sections 334/336/148/ 149/109, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Jalalpur Pirwala, District.
Multan.
2. Briefly the allegation against him as per F.I.R. Is that he on 13-5-2002 at about 10-00 a.m. Had cut the left ear of the complainant Malik Nazir Ahmad,
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in due to enmity; that MLR of the injured is procured one; that the offence under sections 334/336/148/149/109, P.P.C. Is not attracted in this case; and that challan has not been submitted in the Court despite the fact that he was arrested six months ago.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he allegedly with Churra had cut the left ear of the complainant; that the offence under sections 334/336/148/149/109, P.P.C. Is attracted in this case; that it is a heinous crime case; that MLR of the injured has supported the allegation against him, and that challan has been submitted in the Court and in the same formal charge was framed against him yesterday.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly he with Churra had cut the left ear of the complainant, who is present in Court. His said ear seems to have been cut. The doctor has mentioned such injury as No,2 in his MLR. The same has been declared as Itlaf-i-Udw. Hence offence under sections 334/336/148/ 149/109, P.P.C.
Apparently seems to have been attracted in this case. The same is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The challan has been submitted in the Court and in the same formal charge has been framed against him yesterday.
7. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the complainant that the learned Sessions Judge, Multan has issued direction for conclusion of trial within two months, which has not been controverted by the other side.
8. In these circumstances, I do not find him entitled to bail at this stage. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.