SARDAR ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 179 of 2003 registered under Section 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Ganda Singh Wala, involving allegations of destroying a crop by letting cattle loose. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the FIR and previous litigation. The Lahore High Court held that since the contents of the FIR indicated the petitioner was standing in his own haveli and had not personally entered the complainant's crop, and considering the existence of prior land litigation and the assurance that the petitioner would join the investigation, the petitioner made out a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when the accused is not shown to have directly committed the overt act alleged in the specific premises, coupled with mala fide implication stemming from prior civil or property disputes.
- Whether an accused is entitled to confirmation of bail when allegations place him inside his own property rather than the scene of the overt act?
- Does prior ongoing litigation regarding land support a plea of mala fide implication in criminal proceedings for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds and joining the investigation?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.179 of 2003 registered on 22-11-2003 in Police Station Ganda Singh Wala under section 440, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Muhammad Hussain alias Baba alleging that the accused had destroyed his Javi Crop by letting lose 8/10 cattle heads therein. At the time of occurrence Sardar Ali petitioner was standing in his Haveli armed with a rifle and the said Haveli was adjacent to the crop of the complainant.
3. Arguments have been heard record perused.
4. It has been admitted that the petitioner had joined the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assured that the petitioner will continue to do so whenever required by the Police. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even according to the F.I.R. That petitioner was standing in his own Haveli and had not trespassed into the crop of the complainant.
He has also submitted that litigation was already continuing between the parties concerning the land in dispute and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with a mala fide intention and ulterior motives.
5. As according to the contents of the F.I.R., the petitioner was present in his Haveli at the time of occurrence and had not himself entered into the crop of the complainant and it has been asserted that thepetitioner has been falsely implicated in this case with a mala fide intention and ulterior motives and as it has been assured that the petitioner will be joining the investigation as and when required by the Pclice, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, this bail application is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within one week.
6. It is clarified that in case the petitioner fails to join theinvestigation or otherwise tries to tamper with the prosecution evidence, the prosecution of the complainant, as the case may be, shall have the right to file an application for cancellation of bail.
Interim pre-arrest .