ZAHID NASEER vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zahid Naseer in respect of case F.I.R. No. 358 registered under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i), and 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Gago Mandi, District Vehari. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where certain offences are bailable and the remaining non-bailable offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since the offences under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) are bailable and the offence under section 337-F(iv) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., the grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is an exception. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and no exceptional circumstances warranting refusal exist, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of rule.
- Is an offence under section 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the charged offences are either bailable or fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.?
- Does the grant of bail become a rule when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause and no exceptional circumstances exist for refusal?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Zahid Naseer, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,358, dated 2-9-2002 under section 337-A(i)/337-F(i)(iv), P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Gago Mandi, District Vehari.
2. The allegation against him is that on 2-9-2002 at about 8-30 a.m. He while armed with Chhuri inflicted three successive blows to the complainant hitting him on his back of the chest, close to the left ear and the thumb of his left hand. On the attraction of the P.Ws., he fled away from the spot with Chhuri.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that there had been petty quarrel between the children of the parties. The said matter was patched up by the respectables of the locality. On this grudge, he had committed the above act.
4. It has been contended that he has falsely been roped in; that the offence under section 337-A(i) and 337-F(i) is bailable while the one under section 337-F(iv) is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; and that he is behind the bars for the last about six months and previous non-convict.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has inflicted three successive Chhuri blows to the complainant and one of these was on the vital part-of his body like, the back of the chest, and that the weapon of offence i,e, Chhuri was recovered from him.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made above with the help of available record.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about six months. The investigation is complete.
The offence under sections 337-A(i) and 337-F(i), P.P.C. Is bailable. The offence under section 337-F(iv), P.P.C. Is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule and refusal an exception and no exceptional circumstance exists to warrant refusal. He is stated to be previous non-convict.
8. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.