Ss. 324, 337-F(iii)--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Blows of knife to brother of complaint--

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-F(iii)--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Blows of knife to brother of complaint--There is no denial to this fact that petitioner is named in FIR, but High Court has to see from facts and circumstances whether case against petitioner to extent of grant of bail is made out or not--There is delay of seven days in lodging crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by prosecution--As per contents of crime report, petitioner allegedly gave four blows of knife to injured, but Medical Officer has observed only three injuries on his person--Similarly, no lime of arrival of injured in hospital and his examination is given in MLC--All these facts make it a case of further inquiry in favour of petitioner falling within ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C--When confronted, Law Officer frankly concedes that injuries have been declared to be falling under Section 357 F(iii), PPC, for which maximum punishment is three years--offences alleged against petitioner does not attract prohibition contained in Section 497 (1), Cr.P.C.--In cases not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, petitioner is also entitled to relief prayed for--Even otherwise, basic principle is bail and not jail--petitioner is behind bars since date of his arrest--Investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by police and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in fail--Culpability of petitioner would be determined by trial Court during trial after recording of evidence--Bail was allowed.        [Pp. 366 & 367] A & B

PLD 1995 SC 34.

Mrs. Naila Mushtaq Ahmed Dhoon, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor-General for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17.4.2019.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 365
Present: Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.
RAFI ULLAH KHAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 21163-B of 2019, decided on 17.4.2019.

Order

Through the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for his post arrest bail in case FIR No. 192/2018, dated 06.10.2018, offence under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), PPC, registered with Police Station, Pai Khel, District Mianwali.

2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief as per contents of the crime report is that on 29.09.2018, at about 9.15 a.m. he gave four blows of knife to Mauvia Hassan brother of the complainant, which landed on different parts of his body.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant in connivance with the local police against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives. It is submitted that there is delay of seven days in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. Adds that as per contents of crime report, the petitioner gave four blows of knife on the body of injured, but the Medical Officer has observed three injuries on his person. Contends that even otherwise, the injuries ascribed to the petitioner have been declared to be falling under Section 337-F(iii), PPC, for which maximum punishment is three years, which does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Adds that recovery of knife has been planted against the petitioner by the Investigating Officer only in order to strengthen the prosecution case. It is submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since 23.11.2018 and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose is going to be served by his further detention in jail. Learned counsel submits that in view of these circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of post arrest bail in favour of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is argued that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, knife has been recovered from the petitioner, which sufficiently connects him with the commission of the offence alleged, against him. Moreover, he was found guilty by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

5. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. Relevant record available on file perused.

6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the FIR, but this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of bail is made out or not. There is delay of seven days in lodging the crime

report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. As per contents of crime report, the petitioner allegedly gave four blows of knife to the injured, but the Medical Officer has observed only three injuries on his person. Similarly, no time of arrival of injured in hospital and his examination is given in the MLC. All these facts make it a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. When confronted, learned Law Officer frankly concedes that the injuries have been declared to be falling under Section 337-F(iii), PPC, for which maximum punishment is three years. The offences alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. therefore, keeping in view the dictum of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others vs. The State (PLD 1995 S.C. 34) in cases not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief prayed for. Even otherwise, the basic principle is bail and not jail. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest. Investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in fail. The culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence.

7. In sequel to above facts and circumstances, I am persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed