MUHAMMAD RAFI And 2 Others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by three accused persons, Muhammad Rafi, Muhammad Khizar, and Muhammad Saqlain, in connection with F.I.R. No. 53 registered under Section 337-A(i) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, acting in furtherance of a common intention, assaulted the complainant, resulting in a fracture of his nasal bone. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of specific injuries, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the medical evidence. The Court held that while the petitioner Saqlain, who was attributed the specific injury causing the fracture, was not entitled to bail, the other two petitioners, Rafi and Khizar, were entitled to relief. The Court reasoned that since the medical examination revealed only one injury, despite the F.I.R. alleging multiple assailants, the case against Rafi and Khizar required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed for Saqlain and confirmed for the other two petitioners.
- Does a conflict between the F.I.R. and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries sustained by a complainant constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when specific injury causing a fracture is attributed to them in the F.I.R.?
- Can the question of vicarious liability for a specific injury be deferred to the trial stage in bail proceedings?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Rafi, Muhammad Khizar and Muhammad Saqlain, the petitioners have sought for pre- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.53, dated 29-3-2003 under section 337-A(i.e)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Choubara, District Layyah.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 24-3-2003 at about 10-30 a.m., they alongwith their co-accused Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Rafiq in furtherance of their common intention have beaten the complainant Kashif Mehmood, on the Lalkara of Manzoor Ahmad, Saqlain gave him fist blows. His one such blow hit him on his nose resulting into the fracture of his nasal bone.
Rafi and Khizar also gave him fist blows. He raised hue and cry. Mazhar and Abdul Wahid P.Ws.
Were attracted to the spot. They rescued him from them.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that one year prior to the same, there had taken place exchange of abuses between him and the accused. He (complainant) had joined some service and on the day of occurrence he had returned therefrom. They (accused) on that day were infuriated on seeing him and committed the above act.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in on account of political, rivalry; that there is delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. That there is delay: of four days in the medical examination of the complainant/injured; that there only one injury was found on base of the nose of the complainant and the same is attributed to petitioner Saqlain, while according to the F.I.R. Rafiq and Khizar petitioners have also given him fist blows and this conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. And the M.L.R. Of the complainant has rendered their case as one of further inquiry; and that they have joined the investigation.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are nominated in the F.I.R. That specific role has been attributed to them in the commission of the crime; that petitioner Saqlain has caused fist blows to the complainant resulting into the fracture of his nasal bone; and that they had played the game of hide and seek before the Sessions Court.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
7. Petitioner No.3 Muhammad Saqlain has been attributed fist blows to the complainant/injured Kashif Mehmood. One of such blow has caused the fracture of his nasal bone. Apparently, the same has attracted an offence under section 337-A(i.e), P.P.C. There is some explanation or delay in the F.I.R. I, therefore, to his extent do not find it a fit case for pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition to his extent is dismissed.
8. As regards the remaining two petitioners namely Muhammad Rafi and Muhammad Khizar, they too have been attributed fist blows to the complainant but interestingly except one injury, which is attributed to petitioner Saqlain, no other injury was found on his body on his medical examination.
So, apparently there is conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. And the medical evidence as regards them. The question of their vicarious liability for the injury found on the base of the nose of the complainant will be seen at the time of trial. Hence, the case against them requires further inquiry into their guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They admittedly have joined investigation.
9. In these circumstances, I accept this petition to their (petitioner No.1 Muhammad Rafi and No.2 Muhammad Khizar) extent and confirm the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to them subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court.