PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 50
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(ii), 342, 148 & 149--Pre-arrest bail, confirmed--Allegation of--Scope of pre-arrest bail--Contradiction in ocular account and medical history--If at all it is presumed that instant case is not of bail before arrest and if same is declined on technical grounds petitioner would be entitled for bail after arrest after few days, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behinds bars--Held: Scope of bail before arrest is narrow but not to be rendered narrower on flimsy grounds and it should be effectively stretched to its limits in a case where an innocent person faces ostensible danger of being arrested by police for some tainted purpose, as designed by complainant in instant case--The petitioner is on interim bail and according to investigating officer, he has already joined investigation--No useful purpose would be served by sending petitioner behinds bars.
[Para 5-A] A & B
2016 SCMR 1349 & 1986 SCMR 1380 ref.
Malik Zafar Mehboob Langrial, Advocate along with the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, D.P.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 16.2.2021.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 50
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, J.
SALEEM SARWAR--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8229-B of 2020, decided on 16.2.2021.
Order
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner Saleem Sarwar, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 544 dated 26.12.2019 under Section 337-A(ii)/342/148/149, PPC, registered at Police Station Sarwar Shaeed District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly the prosecution case mentioned in the crime report got lodged by Muhammad Yasir complainant is that on 26.12.2019 the petitioner along with his co-accused assaulted the complainant and caused injuries to him. The role attributed to the petitioner is that caused hatchet blow injury on the back side of head of the complainant.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. It divulges from the record that though the petitioner along with other co-accused is nominated in the crime report with specific role of causing hatchet blow injury on the back side head of the complainant but according to the M.L.C. of the complainant/injured Injury No. 1 is lacerated wound caused by blunt weapon. In this way there is contradiction in the ocular account and the medical history of the complainant/injured qua the injury attributed to the petitioner. It is also a circumstance that in the crime report co-accused Yousaf has also been burdened with the responsibility of causing sota blow injury on the head of the complainant/injured and said accused was arrested and recovery of sota was effected form him. The said accused has already been enlarged on bail by the learned trial Court. In view of the above false implication of the petitioner being real brother of said Yousaf co-accused, cannot be ruled out.
5. I have noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 26.12.2019 i.e. more than one year and 1½ month ago and at this stage it cannot be said with certainty that Investigating Officer will be successful to recover the required weapon of offence and recovery of hatchet after such delay would hardly be any helpful to the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the case of Malik Muhammad Aslam vs. The State and others (2016 SCMR 1349).
5-A. If at all it is presumed that the instant case is not of bail before arrest and if the same is declined on technical grounds the petitioner would be entitled for bail after arrest after few days, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behinds the bars. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380). I am mindful of the fact that the scope of bail before arrest is narrow but not to be rendered narrower on flimsy grounds and it should be effectively stretched to its limits in a case where an innocent person faces the ostensible danger of being arrested by the police for some tainted purpose, as designed by the complainant in the instant case. The petitioner is on interim bail since 24.12.2020 and according to the Investigating Officer, he has already joined the investigation. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behinds the bars.
6. Consequently, this petition is allowed, ad-interim bail pre-arrest bail already granted to Saleem Sarwar petitioner, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments