-Pre-arrest bail--Obligation of Petitioner--The petitioner was under allegation that he caused injury with sota on back side of left hand of complainant--It was little finger injury which was observed by doctor with mild swelling without any cut, no bruise and no laceration--

 PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 22
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
DILSHAD--Petitioner
versus
STATE and anothers--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3925-B of 2023, decided on 4.10.2023.

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

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 337-L(2), 148, 149--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmed--Obligation of Petitioner--The petitioner was under allegation that he caused injury with sota on back side of left hand of complainant--It was little finger injury which was observed by doctor with mild swelling without any cut, no bruise and no laceration--It was an occurrence of 24.04.2023 but medical examination was conducted on 23.04.2023 one day prior to occurrence and said date is mentioned twice in MLC, duration of injury as one hour would not be considered at this stage of proceedings--Counsel for complainant states that injury attracts offence under Section 337-F(v), PPC and recovery is yet to be effected from petitioner--In body of F.I.R. date of occurrence is mentioned as 24.03.2023 one month prior to date of reported occurrence--All facts create serious doubts in story of prosecution and in circumstances, mala fide of complainant cannot be ruled out--Mala fide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from facts and circumstances of case--While deciding pre-arrest bail application merits of case can be touched upon and benefit of doubt, if established, can be extended--Petitioner has made out case for pre-arrest bail. [Para 3] A, B & C

PLD 2021 SC 708, 2021 SCMR 130 & 2022 SCMR 1424.

Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Ch., Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Tanvir Haider Buzdar, Assistant District Public Prosecutor for State.

Mr. Tahir Mahmood, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 4.10.2023.

Order

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 271 dated 02.05.2023 registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i) 337-A(i),337-L(2),148,149, PPC at Police Station Kot Sultan District Layyah.

2. Heard. Record perused.

3. The petitioner was under the allegation that he caused injury with sota on the back side of left hand of the complainant. It was little finger injury which was observed by the doctor with mild swelling without any cut, no bruise and no laceration. It was an occurrence of 24.04.2023 but medical examination was conducted on 23.04.2023 one day prior to the occurrence and said date is mentioned twice in MLC, therefore, duration of injury as one hour would not be considered at this stage of proceedings. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the injury attracts offence under Section 337-F(v), PPC and recovery is yet to be effected from the petitioner. Even otherwise, in the body of F.I.R. date of occurrence is mentioned as 24.03.2023 one month prior to the date of reported occurrence. Thus, all such facts create serious doubts in the story of prosecution and in the circumstances, mala fide of the complainant cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as “Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaisar vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 708) has held that mala fide being a state of mind cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of case. It has been further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported as “Khair Muhammad and another vs. the State through P.G Punjab and another” (2021 SCMR 130), “Javed Iqbal versus The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another” (2022 SCMR 1424) that while deciding pre-arrest bail application merits of the case can be touched upon and benefit of doubt, if established, can be extended. In the circumstances, apparently the petitioner has made out the case for pre-arrest bail.

4. In the light of above circumstances, this petition is allowed and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Petition allowed