MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This petition was filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 337-A(ii) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner along with two co-accused, all armed with sotas, attacked and injured the complainant and another person. The legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular version in the FIR. The Lahore High Court observed that while multiple sota blows to the head and body were alleged against the petitioner and his co-accused, the Medico-Legal Report revealed only a single injury on the complainant's person, and no specific injury to the other victim was attributed to him. Holding that this conflict made the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and noting that the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause where bail is a rule and refusal an exception, the Court granted bail.
- Does an apparent conflict between the number of blows alleged in the FIR and the injuries recorded in the Medico-Legal Report make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail as a matter of rule when the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where multiple assailants are alleged to have caused head injuries but only a single injury is found upon medical examination and no specific role is assigned regarding another injured person?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad, the petitioner has sought for bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 118 dated 24-4-2002 under section 337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Dajal, District Rajanpur.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 19-4-2002 at about 12-00 noon, he while armed with Sota alongwith his co-accused Zulfiqar with Sota and Kanir with Sota in furtherance of their common intention had caused injuries to the complainant Noor Ahmed and Muhammad Afsar.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that he alongwith his co-accused wanted to avenge their insult caused about 3/4 months prior to the same.
4. The bail has been sought by him on the ground that he has been falsely roped in, that according to the F.I.R. He and his co --accused had inflicted injuries to the complainant while only one injury was found his person on his medical examination; that similar is the position of the injuries of the other injured Muhammad Afsar and this conflict in the version in the F.I.R, and the MLR of the injured persons renders the case against him as one of further inquiry; that he is behind the bars for the last about six months; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that injury was found on complainant's body as per his MLR.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of record.
7. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had inflicted-Sota blow hitting on the head of Noor Muhammad complainant and thereafter his co-accused Kamir inflicted two Sota blows to him which hit on his head in the middle and abdomen and Zulfiqar I inflicted him Sota blow hitting on the back I side of his head. On his medical examination, h one injury was found on his person. So, apparently there is a conflict in the narration I in the F.I.R. And the MLR of the complainant. While no specific injury of Muhammad Afsar is attributed to him. All these facts have rendered his case as one of further inquiry and so is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. Besides than this the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
9. The grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception, while no exceptional circumstance is there to warrant refusal. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months and previous non --convict.
10. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition is, therefore, accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum or Rs.50',000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction or the learned Illaqa Magistrate/trial Court.