MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Asghar in case FIR No. 535/2003 registered under Sections 337-A(iii) and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the delayed lodging of the FIR, the close relationship between the parties, and the investigating officer's conclusion that the injury was accidental during a sudden fight between women. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's culpability fell within the scope of further inquiry and admitted him to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reveals an injury to be accidental arising from a sudden fight between relatives, and unexplained delay exists in lodging the FIR, the case warrants the concession of bail under the prohibitory clause exceptions.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the investigation concludes that the injury was accidental during a sudden fight?
- Does an unexplained delay of eight days in lodging the FIR justify further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail warranted when the parties are closely related and the initial report omits this material fact?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Asghas son of Atta Muhammad seeks his post arrest bail in the case FIR No, 535/2003' under Sections 337-A(iii), 34 PPC registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara on.
8.10.2003.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as alleged by. The complainant in her FIR was that she was present in her house on 30.9.2003 and her husband was not available ; that all of a sudden the petitioner and his accomplice Allah Ditta came there; the petitioner was armed with a pistol and raised a lalkara that they should be taught a lesson for having insulted the women folk; that Asghar caused a blow with the butt of his pistol causing fracture on her nasal bone; that her noise attracted Tajamal Taj and Ansar Ali who witnessed the occurrence; on seeing the witnesses the accused persons made good there escape. According to the FIR motive was that a few days ago the complainant had an alteraction with the wife of the petitioner and due to this incident the complainant had been attacked. Consequently the instant FIR was recorded.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 15.4.2003. He applied for his post arrest bail which was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur vide his order dated 11.11.2003. Hence this petition.
4. Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sidhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his plea for bail has argued that the incident did not occur in the manner as stated in the FIR; that the petitioner happens to be brother-in-law (husband's brother) of the complainant; that during the course of investigation it has conclusively been proved that the complainant and the petitioner's wife grappled with each other during an altercation and in fact the petitioner intervened, trying to separate them, as a result of which the complainant suffered an accidental injury when she struck her head against a cart standing nearby; that no recovery of pistol as alleged in the FIR has been effected from the petitioner; that there was a delay of eight days in lodging the FIR and the reason advanced for the said delay in the FIR is not convincing at all. Finally he argued that an insignificant incident between two women has been converted into a serious happening and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.
5. On, the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail.
According to him the nasal bone of the petitioner has been fractured and the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under Section 337-A (iii) which is punishable with ten years imprisonment attracting the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.. According to him the material available with the prosecution sufficiently connects him with the crime and he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. On Court's query S.1. Muhammad Iqbal who has brought the record has stated that in the investigation the I.Q. came to the conclusion that it was a sudden fight between two women and that the injury suffered by the complainant was accidental as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I also notice that there is a delay of eight days in lodging the FIR. The admitted position is that the parties are closely related which fact surprisingly does not find mention in the FIR. The culpability of the petitioner needs further enquiry as contemplated by Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Accordingly I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 30,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.