' Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Din, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,68 of 2001, registered under sections 324, 337-H(ii) and 148/149, P.P.C. On 15-3-2001 at Police Station Chak Baidhi, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precisely, the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner alongwith five others took hold Muhammad Ashraf brother of the complainant and one of the accused Soba son of Jamal, who was armed with .7 mm rifle fired at Muhammad Ashraf, which hit him on his left shin.
3. Investigation of the case has been completed and the challan has been sent to the Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been noticed that the petitioner who was allegedly armed with a Sota did not cause any injury on the person of Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Or to any other P.W. There is only one injury on the person of Muhammad Ashraf and that was found to be a fire-arm injury. In one of the investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent. In the second investigation, the Investigating Officer has concluded that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but no overt act has been attributed to him. No recovery has been effected from him.
5. The crux of the above discussion is that the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition and grant bail to the petitioner subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.
2002 P Cr. L J [Lahore] Before Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud, J MUHAMMAD ASLAM---Petitioner versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Miscellaneous No,1772/B of 2001, decided on 6th September, 2001.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/337-A(ii)/148/149---Bail, grant of---Accused was alleged to be armed with hatchet but two injuries on head of the injured caused by the blunt weapons were not attributed to the accused---Injury attributed to the accused landed on the back of right ear, which initially was declared Shujja-i-Khafifah---Two of the accused were alleged to be armed with fire-arms, but no injury was caused by the fire-arms which had shown that accused had no intention to kill anybody---Accused had not repeated blows and only one injury was attributed to him and neither any bone was cut nor any fracture was caused in consequence of the injury caused by the accused---Question whether the case of the accused fell within the ambit of 5.324, P.P.C. Needed further probe and inquiry and other offences against the accused did not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clauk of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was entitled to grant of bail, in circumstances. [p. 112] A, C & E
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497--Bail, grant of---Principle---Law could not be stretched in favour of the defence or the prosecution for purpose of bail---Bail could not be withheld as punishment and in case where the Court would feel that it was a case of further inquiry, the bail could not be withheld even for a day.
[p. 112] B & D Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277; Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585 and Shabbir Ahmad alias Shibli v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1348 ref. Rana Zahid Iqbal assisted by Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Mehr Muhammad Naeem Arshad for the Complainant.
Jamil Ahmad Chohan for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th September, 2001.
' Through the instant petition, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Arif, petitioner, who is involved as accused in a case F.I.R. No,198 of 2001 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
At Police Station Saddar Arifwala, on 23-4-2001, has sought his post-arrest bail.
2. The precise allegations as leveled in the F.I.R. Are that on 22-4-2001 at about 5-45 p.m., when Ghulam Moin-ud-Din (injured) brother of the complainant, was returning to his house, he was attacked by nine accused out of these nine accused seven were nominated in the F.I.R.
3. The perusal of the F.I.R. Shows that the accused Muhammad Abbas was armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Azam and Ahmad Raza armed with Sotas, Muhammad Khan armed with a hockey, Muhammad Amir armed with a pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Amin empty-handed and Muhammad Aslam, (petitioner) armed with hatchet, assaulted upon Ghulam Moin-ud-Din and caused him various injuries. It was further stated in the F.I.R. That Ghulam Moin-ud-Din was also taken to their Dera by the accused and he was also given beating there.
4. The petitioner was arrested on 18-6-2001. The hatchet was shown to be recovered from him. Now he is in judicial lock-up.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that a large number of persons has been involved in the case and the story of the prosecution as alleged in the F.I.R. Is not plausible that two of the accused, who were armed with fire-arms if wanted to kill Ghulam Moin-ud-Din nobody could stop them from doing so; that according to the F.I.R. The petitioner caused one injury on the person of.
Ghulam Moin-ud-Din, which landed on the back of his right ear; that it is not a case of the prosecution that the petitioner repeated the blows and that section 324, P.P.C. Has been added without any substance and the other offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Do not attract the provisions of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. On the other hand. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that while the petitioner was armed with hatchet, caused injury on the person of Ghulam Moin-ud-Din. He was named in the F.I.R. There is no delay in lodging the report. The injury caused by the petitioner resulted into the loss of hearing of the victim, therefore, the provisions of section 336, P.P.C. Are attracted, which fall within the prohibitory clause.
Ghulam Moin-ud-Din P.W. Was mercilessly beaten by the accused party.
7. The learned State Counsel has adopted the lines of arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and added that blood-stained clothes of the injured P.W. Had been taken into possession, which corroborates the fact that the injured was given a severe beating.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The perusal of the medico-legal report shows that injured received two injuries on his head, which are not attributed to the petitioner as the same were caused by the blunt weapons. The injury attributed to the petitioner landed on the back of right ear and was initially declared "Shajjah-i-Khafifah". So far section 336, P.P.C. Has not been added. Admittedly, for the purpose of bail, the law cannot be stretched in favour of the defence or the prosecution. Reliance is placed on Amir v. The State PLD 1972 SC 277.
9. t has been noticed that although two of the accused were armed with fire-arms yet no injury was caused by the fire-arms, which clearly shows that the accused had no intention whatsoever to kill anybody. Similarly the petitioner has also not repeated the blows and only one injury is attributed to him. Neither any bone was cut nor any fracture was caused in the result of the injury caused by the petitioner.
10. As far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned that the petitioner was recently arrested, to say the least, it is not a legal argument. As the bail cannot be withheld as punishment and in case where the Court feels that it is a case of further inquiry then bail cannot be withheld even for a day. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case of Shabbir Ahmad alias Shibli v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 1348, which deals with the general powers relating to the grant or refusal of bail in the circumstances of the case.
12. The initial report of the Medical Officer was verified by the Board and the same is available on the record as Annexure "G".
13. In these circumstances the question whether the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of section 324, P.P.C., needs further probe and inquiry. As far as the other offences are concerned they do not fall within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his depositing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees ten thousand with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.