Adnan Ashraf And Another vs The State
The petitioners, Adnan Ashraf and Sajid Mahmood, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 779 registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iv), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, following allegations of causing injuries with a danda and dagger. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause, investigation was complete, and trial had not yet commenced. The Lahore High Court held that since the alleged offenses did not fall under the prohibitory clause, the accused were no longer required for investigative purposes, and the trial was not likely to commence or conclude soon, keeping them incarcerated indefinitely served no useful purpose. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, thereby reinforcing the principle that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment in non-prohibitory clause cases where further detention is unnecessary.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the completion of investigation and absence of likelihood of an early trial justify the grant of bail?
- Can pre-trial incarceration be used as a form of punishment when the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.- Adnan Ashraf and Sajid Mahmood petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No. 779, dated 5.10.2000 under Sections 337- A(ii)/337-F(i)/337-F(iv)/337-L(ii)/34, PPC. P.S. Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, registered at the instance of Din Muhammad with the allegation that on 4.10.2000 at 6.30 p.m. He was attacked by the present petitioners who caused injuries on his person with danda and dagger, After arrest bail was refused to them by the learned llaqa Magistrate vide his order dated 13.11.2000 and there-after by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Jaranwala vide his order dated 5.12.2000.
2. Learned counsel for the. Petitioner and for the complainant and State have been heard exhaustively and record perused.
3. Admittedly the alleged offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause. After completion for the investigation the petitioners have been sent to judicial lock-up and are no more required for investigation purpose. The trial of the case has not commenced so far and there is no likelihood for early commencement or conclusion for the trial. No useful purpose can be served by keeping them behind the bars for an indefinite period.
4. Therefore, they are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.