MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case where the petitioner, Maqbool Ahmad, sought release pending trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, specifically when the prosecution allegedly suppressed the petitioner's own injuries sustained during the occurrence, and whether the commencement of the trial acted as an absolute bar to such relief. The Court observed that the petitioner had sustained twenty-five injuries, including those from sharp-edged weapons, which were documented in a medico-legal report but omitted by the prosecution. The Court held that the suppression of these injuries rendered the case one of further inquiry. It affirmed the principle that while bail is ordinarily discouraged once a trial has commenced, it remains permissible if the accused's case falls under the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the statute. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the provision of sureties and strict adherence to trial attendance requirements.
- Can bail be granted to an accused person after the commencement of the trial?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by the prosecution constitute a ground for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the existence of a prohibitory clause in Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 an absolute bar to the grant of bail when the case falls under the category of further inquiry?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that there are 25 injuries on the person of present petitioner with sharp-edged weapon and blunt-edged weapon respectively which have been suppressed by the complainant. Learned counsel submits that though the trial has started but during trial if case of an accused is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
The Court can allow bail to him. In this regard he has relied upon PLD 1989 SC 584 and 2000 PCr.LJ
845. Learned counsel submits that there is no bar for grant of bail, even trial has started. He submits that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that petitioner not only gave Sota blow to the deceased but also injured three P. Ws. He submits that case of the petitioner is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parries. Certified copy of Medico-legal Report of Maqbool Ahmad petitioner has been placed on record. The occurrence had taken place on 17-3- 2002 at 5-00 p.m., petitioner was got medically examined by the police itself on the same day at 6- 30 p.m, There are 25 injuries on the person of present petitioner. Injuries Nos.2, 3 and 5 are with sharp-edged weapon while the rest are with blunt-edged weapon. The petitioner was examined by the Doctor immediately after the occurrence and according to the Medico---Legal Report the duration was also fresh one but the injuries were suppressed by the prosecution. It is correct that ordinarily when the trial starts bail is not granted but according to section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail can be granted to an accused person if his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. i.e. Of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the above said judgments.
4. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry so while accepting this petition petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties in the like, amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. I may also state here that the petitioner shall appear on each and every date of hearing fixed by the Court. He will ensure the availability of his counsel also. In case he intentionally does not appear before the trial Court or does not produce his counsel then learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel his bail granted by this Court.