Ss. 337-F(iv), F(i), A(i), L(ii) & 34--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Confirmation of--Allegation of--The occurrence allegedly took place whereas FIR was lodged with delay of about ten days-

 PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 150
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3710-B of 2020, decided on 5.10.2020.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(iv), F(i), A(i), L(ii) & 34--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Confirmation of--Allegation of--The occurrence allegedly took place whereas FIR was lodged with delay of about ten days--Even injured was medically examined with delay of about three days of alleged occurrence--The prosecution has not explained any reason for such inordinate delay, which is fatal to prosecution’s case--Prosecutor General has vehemently argued that recovery is yet to be effected from petitioner, hence, he is not entitled for extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail--Arrest of petitioner is not necessary for purpose of recovery and said purpose can be achieved by procuring search warrants by Investigating Officer--Investigation of case is complete--The assertion of counsel for petitioner that involvement of petitioner in case seems to be based on mala fide and malicious intent cannot be said to be without substance or foundation at this stage--Sending petitioner behind bars at this stage would serve no useful purpose--Bail confirmed.                                                          [Para 4 & 6] A & B

Rana Jahanzaib Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, DPG for State.

Date of hearing: 5.10.2020.

Order

Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Saleem is seeking his pre-arrest bail case FIR No. 486/2020, dated 11.5.2020, offences under Sections 337-F(iv), F(i), A(i) L(ii) 34, PPC, registered with the Police Station Mumtazabad, District Multan, at the instance of Bashir Ahmed complainant.

2. The allegations against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused while armed with churee intercepted the complainant’s son namely Muhammad Tariq and injured him. During the occurrence, the petitioner caused a churee blow injury on the right leg of Muhammad Tariq.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. The occurrence allegedly took place on 1.5.2020 whereas the FIR was lodged on 11.5.2020 with the delay of about ten days. Even the injured was medically examined with the delay of about three days of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has not explained any reason for such inordinate delay, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

5. It is discernable from the perusal of the record that as a result of the events which took place on 01.5.2020, initially the matter was reported to the Police by the petitioner’s brother namely Muhammad Naeem on the same day of the occurrence. Copy of front desk online complaint receipt is also available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after filing of the application by the petitioner’s brother the matter was patched up but the complainant got lodged the instant case against the petitioner and his brothers after delay of ten days with malafide intention.

6. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently argued that recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner, hence, he is not entitled for the extra ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Suffice is to observe that arrest of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of recovery and the said purpose can be achieved by procuring the search warrants by the Investigating Officer. Investigation of the case is complete. The assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner that the involvement of the petitioner in the case seems to be based on mala fide and malicious intent cannot be said to be without substance or foundation at this stage. Sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage would serve no useful purpose.

7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court in any manner.

(A.A.K.)          Bail confirmed