1995 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)

S. 3

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.204

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.228

Contempt of Court

Court, during course of hearing announced that order would be made at 1-00 p.m. but the counsel started shouting and stressed that order should be announced then and there

Court told the counsel that after going through the previous petition and in order to save public time order will be announced at 1-00 p.m. but attitude of the counsel was again the same

Court warned the counsel not to repeat such words and stress upon the Court but the counsel kept on shouting and pressing the Court for announcement of the order

Such attitude and conduct of counsel being derogatory and amounting to interference into process of the Court, show cause notice was issued to the counsel as to why proceedings under S.228, P.P.C. read with Art.204 of the Constitution and S.3 of the Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against him. Mansoor-ur-Rehman Khan Afridi for Petitioner. Akhtar Ali Oureshi for the State. The petitioner in this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. is named accused in F.I.R. No.234/94 registered at Police Station Mustafa Abad on 27-7-1994, under section 324/34, P.P.C. alongwith one Amanat on the statement of Nazir Ahmad complainant.

2. The facts as disclosed in the F.I.R. are to the effect that the complainant and the accused had some dispute over land and on 27-7-1994 the petitioner and co-accused Amanat attacked brother of the complainant while he was attending to his bullock in the street. Injury attributed to the petitioner is hatchet blow on the back of the head of Shafiq and further blow from the blunt side on the back of Shafiq. Contention of the learned counsel is that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner falls under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. for which the maximum punishment is seven years and on this basis the petitioner had been allowed bail on 17-10-1994 by the Magistrate Section 30, Kasur on the ground that there is counter-version of the accused party that they had been injured during the occurrence. His bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide order, dated 5-12-1994 in which order, the learned counsel contends, the learned Court had wrongly assumed that punishment for the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is ten years and this falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel contends that the alleged offence falls under section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. which is Shujjah-i-Manaqqilah for which maximum punishment is seven years. He further contends that the fact has been suppressed in the F.I.R. that' there are three injuries on the person of the petitioner which were inflicted during the occurrence by the complainant party and the she-ass of the Rehri of the accused was also injured during the occurrence and this counter-version was not taken into account while cancelling the bail; that the petitioner has filed a complaint under section 200, Cr.P.C. before Magistrate against the complainant party under sections 337 F(1), 324 and related offences of 'the Pakistan Penal Code wherein after recording preliminary evidence the learned Magistrate has issued summons for appearance of 5 persons from the complainant side. Further argued that co accused Amanat has been discharged in the case which shows that at least to the extent of fifty per cent. the prosecution story has already been disbelieved which makes it a case of further inquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Shera and 7 others v. State 1978 PCr.LJ 1.65 to argue that when injuries of accused party are not explained accused are entitled to bail since it is a case of further inquiry.

5. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; he has been attributed specific role; he is the principal accused; injury attributed to hire is grievous on vital part of the body; investigation has been completed and challan is ready to be sent to Court for trial, while injuries on the person of the accused/petitioner are simple and it is not a stage for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. The Investigating Officer has confirmed that the investigation is complete. The statement of the petitioner had been recorded in the investigation but his counter-version has apparently not been investigated by the police. The fact that in the complaint case summons have been issued to E five persons discloses a prima facie case against the complainant party which makes it a case of further inquiry. However, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause since on examination of statutory provisions I find that maximum punishment for the offence which fall under section 324/337-A(iv), P.P.C., is 10 years in addition to Arsh which shall be fifteen per cent. of the Diyat for Shajjah-i-Munaqqilah. however, in view of the precedent cited by the learned counsel that even in cases which falls within the prohibitory clause bail has been allowed when it is made out that it is a case of further inquiry, the petitioner is, C allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond, in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate Section 30, Kasur/Judicial Magistrate, Kasur. The trial Court is authorised to cancel the bail if it finds that the concession is being misused by the petitioner. N.H.Q./B-147/L Bail allowed.