Form No:HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Case No. Crl. Misc. No.8774-B of 2014
Asif Mehmood etc. Versus The State etc.
S.No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge and that of
Proceedings Proceedings Parties of counsel, where necessary.
19.08.2014. Mr. Mazhar Hayat, Advocate along with the petitioners.
Mr. Muhammad Arshad Farooqi, Deputy Prosecutor
General along with Muhammad Hayat ASI with record.
Mr. Faisal Hayat Bosal, Advocate for the complainant.
Asif Mehmood, Mian Ahmad and Muhammad
Akbar, petitioners seek bail before arrest in case FIR
No.635 dated 21.11.2013, offence under Sections 337-
A(i), 337-A(iii), 148 and 149 PPC registered at Police
Station Jhal Chakian District Sargodha. The allegation
against the petitioners is that they along with their co-
accused while armed with different weapons attacked
the complainant and caused him injuries. It is pertinent
to mention here that Muhammad Akbar petitioner was
not nominated in the FIR and he was implicated through
supplementary statement of the complainant dated
17.12.2013.
2. Heard. Admittedly, there is delay of four days in
the registration of the FIR. I have observed that the
injury specifically attributed to Asif Mehmood,
petitioner is the only injury that constitutes the offence
under Section 337-A(iii) PPC which is non-bailable and
also falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure but the fact remains
that the District Medical Board has declared that
possibility of fabrication of the same injury cannot be
ruled out while rest of the offences alleged against the
Crl. Misc. No.8774-B of 2014 -2-
petitioners are bailable. Mian Ahmad petitioner who is
the father of Asif Mehmood petitioner has not been
attributed any specific injury and even he has not been
alleged to have used hatchet during the occurrence. So
far as the petitioner Muhammad Akbar is concerned, he
is not nominated in the FIR and he was implicated
through a belated supplementary statement recorded on
17.12.2013. Even in the said supplementary statement,
he has not been assigned any injury on the person of
injured. I have also noted that the statements, under
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of
eyewitnesses namely, Muhammad Saqlain and
Maqsood Ali were recorded after a considerable delay
of about one month. In this view of the matter, the case
of all the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their
guilt as is envisaged under Section 497(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure coupled with the fact not denied
by the prosecution that the complainant was aggrieved
because of sale of plot in issue owned by the petitioners
Asif Mehmood and his father Mian Ahmad jointly to
the petitioner Akbar against the wishes of the
complainant who, due to that reason, nourished grudge
in his mind against all the three petitioners and a civil
suit regarding said plot is also pending before the civil
court. According to the Investigating Officer present in
Court, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners.
All the petitioners have joined investigation. Asif
Mehmood petitioner is an employee in District Courts,
Mian Ahmad petitioner is a retired school teacher
having the age of about seventy years, whereas,
Muhammad Akbar petitioner is also a government
employee and all the petitioners have no criminal
antecedents. In my view, the wisdom behind the
legislation of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is to save such like persons in such like cases
Crl. Misc. No.8774-B of 2014 -3-
from humiliation likely to be caused by their
unnecessary and unjustified custody with the police. Be
that as it may, in the circumstances of the instant case,
sending the petitioners behind the bars to come out on
post arrest bail after a few days does not look
reasonable. Seeking light from the cases Muhammad
Aslam versus State (PLJ 1999 Cr. C. Lahore 1504)
and Muhammad Ramzan versus Zafar Ullah and
another (1986 SCMR 1380), this petition is accepted
and ad-interim bail before arrest already allowed to the
petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their
furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
each with one surety each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned trial court.
3. However, it is made clear that the supra
observations are tentative in nature, relevant only for
the disposal of this bail petition and shall not influence
the learned trial court in any manner during the trial.
(Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi)
Judge
APPROVED FOR REPORTING:
Judge
‘Javaid’
