Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2),498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 324,337A(ii),337U,506(2),504

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 337-A(ii), 337-U, 506(2) & 504---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, itlaf of teeth, criminal intimidation, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation recalling of---Further inquiry---Allegation against the applicants-accused were that they caused injuries by inflicting hatchet blows to the nephew of the complainant---Insofar as applicant "IH" was concerned, the allegations levelled against him related to causing a hatchet blow to injured---Medico-Legal Certificate did not reflect grievous injury in terms of shajjah-i-mudihah or jurh ghayr jaifah munaqqilah, as defined under Ss. 337A(ii) & 337-F(i) P.P.C---Furthermore, the delay in lodging the FIR remained unexplained, which introduced an element of doubt as to the true genesis of the occurrence, warranting further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.--Consequently, in the absence of sufficient material to conclusively implicate applicant "IH", the benefit of bail must be extended in his favour---Conversely, accused "M" had been attributed a specific role of inflicting a hatchet blow to the victim's face, causing the fracture of tooth No. 21 (upper right) and lower right 1, as corroborated by the medical certificate---Such an injury fell under jurh ghayr jaifah hashimah, punishable under S.337-A(ii) P.P.C---Where an accused is assigned a direct role in causing grievous hurt, bail may be refused--Furthermore, the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), does not automatically apply in bail proceedings, and each case must be considered on its own merits---In the present case the ocular and medical evidence sufficiently connected accused "M" with the commission of the offence, thereby disentitling him from the concession of bail---In such eventualities, the bail application of accused "IH" was allowed, consequently the interim pre-arrest already granted to him was confirmed on same terms and conditions---However, the bail application to the extent of accused "M" was dismissed, as such…