PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 151
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Miss Aalia Neelum, J.
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 52196-B of 2022, decided on 7.2.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148, 149, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi)--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Petitioner was named in FIR with a specific role for causing fire-arm injuries--Two versions--There are two versions on record, one given by complainant in FIR and second by complainant of cross-version, so it is yet to be determined by trial Court after recording evidence which version is believable and correct--Petitioner remained proclaimed offender--On perusal of proceedings taken place u/S. 87/88, Cr.P.C. it reflects that procedure of Sections 87 and 88 was not made by law as without waiting for expiry of 30 days, accused was declared proclaimed offender, so it has no value in eyes of law--During investigation, investigating officer opined that aggressor party was complainant’ side--Trial Court would determine allegation’ veracity after recording evidence from parties--Prima facie, there are sufficient grounds that require further probe into guilt of petitioner and entitle him to be released on bail--The petitioner has been behind bars since his arrest, and his further incarceration in jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose--Bail allowed. [Para 4] A & B
Ms. Gulzar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 7.2.2023.
Order
C.M. No. 2 of 2023
The petitioner seeks permission to place certain documents on record through the instant petition. For the reasons recorded therein, the same is granted subject to all just and legal exceptions.
Main Case
Ms. Gulzar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq, DPG for State.
Syed Ali Raza Sherazi, Advocate for Complainant.
2. The petitioner-Sardar Abdullah seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 216/2017, dated 12.11.2017, registered under Sections 324, 148, 149, 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(vi), PPC, at Police Station Sadar Sarai Alamgir, District Gujrat.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR with a specific role for causing firearm injuries to the person of Zubaida Bibi-injured PW, the injuries attributed to the petitioner are available in the medico-legal certificate. However, the same were declared as falling under Sections 337-F(iii) & 337-F(iv), PPC, which entail three years and five years imprisonment, respectively, or a fine or both, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Besides, from the petitioner’s side, co-accused Mushtaq and Farooq also sustained ten injuries and 11 injuries respectively on their persons during the occurrence and the complainant while reporting the matter has suppressed the injuries sustained by the petitioner’s side. In addition, on the application of co-accused Farooq, father of the petitioner, cross-version was also registered against the complainant of FIR and others. The petitioner’s co-accused-Farooq also filed a private complaint against the complainant of the FIR and others, wherein the complainant party was summoned to face the trial. Even otherwise, Zakir PW of FIR also filed a complaint under Section 506-II, 34, PPC alleging therein that he did not witness the occurrence as alleged by the complainant of FIR, nor was any recovery effected in his presence, and he made a statement under threat of the complainant. On perusal of the MLC of Zubaida Bibi-injured PW, it reveals that the injured was medically examined at 10:30 a.m on 12.11.2017, and the doctor has mentioned probable duration of injuries “within 12 hours”, whereas the incident took place at 09:00 a.m on 12.11.2017. The statement of injured Zubaida Bibi was also recorded on 17.11.2017 with a delay of 05 days, which goes unexplained. Thus, there are two versions on the record, one given by the complainant in the FIR and the second by the complainant of cross-version, so it is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence which version is believable and correct. It is pointed out by the learned law officer that the petitioner remained proclaimed offender. On perusal of the proceedings taken place under Sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. it reflects that procedure of Sections 87 and 88 was not made by law as without waiting for the expiry of 30 days, the accused was declared proclaimed offender, so it has no value in the eyes of the law. The report from the learned trial Court was also requisitioned, which was received. A perusal of the report dated 24.12.2022 reveals that the charge was framed against the accused persons on 07.11.2022, and the case was fixed for prosecution evidence. Moreover, the examination in chief of four private witnesses was recorded on 12.10.2021 before the predecessor Court, but the petitioner’s side remains unable to conduct the cross-examination until now, and the delay is occasioned due to the non-co-operation of the petitioner’s side. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report requisitioned from the learned trial Court is against the record, as the amended charge was framed against all the accused persons on 19.12.2022, and this fact has not been mentioned by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, in his report. After that, the new report was requisitioned from the learned trial Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Sarai Alamgir, submitted a new report dated 23.01.2023 revealing that the amended charge was framed on 19.12.2022. Learned counsel for the complainant on the Court’s query admitted that cross version is the outcome of the same occurrence, and the law mandates that both cases should be tried together. During the investigation, the investigating officer opined that the aggressor party was the complainant’ side. The learned trial Court would determine the allegation’ veracity after recording evidence from the parties. In the respect, reliance is placed on 2011 SCMR 606 and 2022 SCMR 547. Prima facie, there are sufficient grounds that require further probe into the guilt of the petitioner and entitle him to be released on bail. The petitioner has been behind bars since his arrest, and his further incarceration in jail for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose.
5. For the reasons supra, the petition is accepted, and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments