PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 79
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
MUSHTAQ--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8813-B of 2022, decided on 26.1.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 324/337-F(iii)--Post Arrest Bail--grant of--Petitioner has been assigned the role of making two fire shots and causing fire-arm injuries on right calf and knee--The dimension and locale of injuries available on right calf and knee portray that the possibility cannot be ruled out that these injuries are in continuation of each other--Mere commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail--Petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail. [Para 4, 5 & 6] A, B & C
2020 SCMR 971; 2014 SCMR 12; 2014 SCMR 27; PLD 1995 SC 34; 2020 SCMR 717 ref.
Mr. Muhammad Abrar Ansari, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Hassan Mehmood Khan Tareen, DPG for State.
Date of hearing: 26.1.2023.
Order
Through this petition, the petitioner conjures post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 156, dated 22.06.2022, under Sections 324, 337F(iii), PPC, registered at Police Station Haram Gate, District Multan.
2. Brief facts narrated in FIR are that on 22.06.2022 at about 12:15 am. (night), the petitioner made two fire shots and caused injuries on right calf and knee of Muhammad Kashif injured. Hence, the above-mentioned FIR.
3. I have mused over the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. After going through the narration of FIR and the evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before this Court, it divulges that the petitioner has been assigned the role of making two fire shots and causing fire-arm injuries on right calf and knee of Muhammad Kashif injured, which have been declared by the doctor as “ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah” falling under Section 337F(iii), PPC and the same do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. It is settled Proposition of law that if the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. then basic rule is bail not jail and refusal an exception as laid down in the case of “Tariq Bashir v. The State” (PLD 1995 SC 34) and “Ramzan alias Jani vs. The State” (2020 SCMR 717). No exceptional circumstance is available in the present case as the petitioner has no previous criminal record.
5. Learned Law Officer has argued with vehemence that the provision of Section 324, PPC is also attracted in this case, but he could controvert that the injuries are on non-vital part. Furthermore, the dimension and locale of injuries available on right calf and knee portray that the possibility cannot be ruled out that these injuries are in continuation of each other. In the eventuality of above discussion, the attraction of Section 324, PPC will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording and scanning incriminating material at the time of trial. Reliance is placed upon the case of “Muhammad Faisal v. The State and another” (2020 SCMR 971), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“6. As far as the question of applicability of Section 324, P.P.C. is concerned, undeniably, the injuries are on non-vital part against a motive which is feeble in nature, hence, we are constrained to give any finding lest it may prejudice case of either party, however, it would be resolved by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence during the course of proceeding before it.”
6. The contention of the learned Law Officer that trial has commenced and any expression of opinion by this Court at this stage would prejudice the case of complainant is concerned, suffice it to say that it is settled proposition of law that mere commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail if an accused has made out a case of further inquiry falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. My view is fortified by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases titled as “Syed Khalid Hussain Shah v. The State and another” (2014 SCMR 12) and “Nisar Ahmad v. The State and others (2014 SCMR 27).
7. The petitioner, after his arrest, in this case has been sent to judicial lockup. The investigation is already completed and he is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
8. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
9. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(K.Q.B.) Bail allowed
0 Comments