NAWAZISH ALI vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application regarding an FIR registered under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner argued that the FIR was delayed by six months and that the complainant had previously been prosecuted under Section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for filing a false complaint. The State contended that the petitioner was found guilty during the investigation and had failed to join the investigation, while co-accused remained at large. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was prima facie involved in a serious offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the petitioner failed to satisfy the necessary conditions for anticipatory bail and noting his failure to join the investigation, the Court upheld the lower courts' discretion in refusing bail. Leave to appeal was refused, though the Court clarified this dismissal would not prejudice a future application for post-arrest bail.
- Does the failure of an accused to join a police investigation justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court interfere with the discretion exercised by lower courts in declining anticipatory bail when the accused is prima facie involved in a serious offence?
- Does the dismissal of a pre-arrest bail petition prejudice a subsequent application for post-arrest bail?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, against judgment dated 27-2-2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,585/B of 2004 whereby the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. A criminal case F.I.R. No,3 of 2004 dated 2-1-2004 under section 365, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and others at police Station Samanabad, Lahore, on the complaint of one Muhammad Ashraf. The complainant alleged therein that on 15-6-2003, while he was proceeding to Mehr Hotel after offering Esha prayers, white colour Suzuki car intercepted him. The present petitioner, Amjad Butt and another person known as Cheema came out of the car. One of them placed a Mouser pistol op his temple and then all the accused pushed him into the car. The complainant further stated that he was taken to some unknown place and was confined in a shop where the accused Cheema kept watch on him. During the night, the petitioner administered an injection to him. When the complainant regained consciousness on the next day, the petitioner and other accused forced him to sign certain documents. The complainant managed to escape on the third day.
3. The complainant approached the police by making a written complaint which was inquired into and was found to be false. The complainant was proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C.
Thereafter, the aforesaid F.I.R. Was registered pursuant to an order passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, on the application of the complainant.
4. The petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by order, dated 19-1-2004. He also moved the Lahore High Court, through Criminal Miscellaneous No,585/B of 2004 for the same relief which was declined, by the impugned order, dated 27-2-2004. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of about 6 months in lodging the F.I.R. And that the complainant of this case had already been proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C. For giving a false information/application to the police. The story narrated by the prosecution was false and unbelievable.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that according to the police investigation of the F.I.R., the petitioner was found guilty. The petitioner had not joined the police investigation so far and his co-accused were also at large.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel for some time. From the record produced before us by the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner is, prima facie, involved in commission of the offence falling within the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. The allegations against the 'petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner does not appear to have joined the investigation. Since the police had declined to register the case, therefore, the complainant was justified to approach the Sessions Court in the matter. The discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court in declining the extraordinary concession of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not call for -interference by this Court. The petitioner failed to satisfy necessary conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition for pre-arrest bail which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. However, the above observations shall not be construed to prejudice the case of the petitioner for the grant of post-arrest bail in due course on merits.