MASOOD AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition filed by Masood Ahmad seeking confirmation of his ad interim pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 111 registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal, for offences under sections 337-F(ii), 337-D, 506(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner, who was attributed a specific role of being armed with a rifle and inflicting butt blows, was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail considering that no firearm was used and the medical evidence did not corroborate the butt blow injuries. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had joined the investigation, the injuries were attributed to other co-accused, and the medical record did not support the allegations against him, sending him to jail on technical grounds would serve no useful purpose. The court consequently confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the medical evidence does not support the specific role attributed to the accused in the FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail if he has joined the investigation and no useful purpose would be served by sending him to jail?
- Does the mere attribution of being armed without using the weapon justify withholding pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Masood Ahmad petitioner has sought confirmation of his ad interim pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.111, registered at Police Station Farid Town, Sahiwal on 10-4-2002 for an offence under sections 337-F(ii)/337-D/506(2)/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the story as given in the F.I.R. Is that on 4-4-2002 at about 7-15 p.m. Wasim Ahmad and Naeem Ahmad sons of the complainant came out of the barber shop when Sajjad Hussain armed with dagger, Masood Ahmad petitioner armed with a rifle 7 mm, Muhammad Ahmad alias Nikkah armed with a dagger, Mehmood Ahmed and Qasim empty-handed (all sons of Muhammad Tufail) reached there Sajjad Hussain raised Lalkara and thereafter Sajjad inflicted a dagger blow on the person of Naeem Ahmad which hit him on his left flank and he fell down. Muhammad Ahmad alias Nikka gave a dagger blow on the right flank of Waseem Ahmad who also fell down. The rest of the accused gave beating to the injured P.Ws. With fist and kicks and butt of rifle.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that all the brothers have been roped in as accused in the instant F.I.R.; that the petitioner although stated to be armed with a rifle did not fire the same and that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his arrest would not be justified in the circumstances of the case. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State have argued that the petitioner was named in promptly lodged F.I.R.
As accused, a specific role was assigned to him; he had a motive to participate in the occurrence and that the petitioner had a shady character who was involved in many cases prior to the instant occurrence. It has further been argued that the considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail are entirely different from the considerations for the grant of post-arrest bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record of the case. Admittedly, the petitioner has joined the investigation. According to the medical evidence placed on record Wasim and Naeem, the injured P.Ws., received one injury each and those injuries have been attributed to Muhammad Ahmad alias Nikka and Sajjad accused: The allegation against the petitioner that he gave butt blow on the person of the inured P.Ws, is not borne out I from the medical record. The petitioner was shown to be armed with a rifle but he never used the same. He is brother of the principal accused. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served if the petitioner is sent to jail on some technical grounds.
5. For what has been stated above I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 22-5-2002 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) within one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-2033/L