ADNAN and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners approached the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 492 of 2004 registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Liaqatabad, District Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail when no specific role or injury was attributed to them other than mere presence, a cross-version was presented, and allegations of mala fides were made against the police and the complainant. The court held that since no specific role was attributed to the petitioners, their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the possibility of false involvement could not be ruled out. The key principle laid down is that where an accused person is assigned only general presence without specific overt acts and a cross-version with allegations of mala fides exists, the case becomes one of further inquiry, warranting the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when no specific role or injury is attributed to them in the FIR?
- Does the existence of a cross-version and allegations of mala fides make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be confirmed when the involvement of the accused requires further inquiry into their actual participation?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petilioners have approached this Court through the instant petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,492 of 2004 dated 14-10-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Liaqatabad District, Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Athar Siddiqui.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that four persons namely Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Imran and the petitioners Adnan and Suleman were nominated in the F.I.R. That no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners except that they were found present at the place of occurrence and the injuries are attributed to Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Imran while Muhammad Aslam has been bailed out by the learned trial Court. The petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore for their pre-arrest bail, which was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who declined the same vide order dated 27-11-2004, merely on the ground that no specific malice has been shown by the petitioners against the police and the complainant.
3. The learned State counsel vehemently opposed the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record placed by the Investigating Officer.
5. The learned State counsel did not deny that the only role attributed to the petitioners is of their presence. He is unable to deny that cross-version of the case has been put forth by the petitioners and he is also unable to controvert that petitioners had alleged their malice against the police and the complainant party. He further added that they were not even residing in the vicinity, so there was no occasion for the petitioners to participate in the dispute of utility bills of the premises.
6. As no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners, cross-version of the petitioners has also cropped up and the Investigating Officer. And the learned State counsel could not refute it, the plea of the petitioners that they have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out and the matter of the petitioners of course is of further inquiry covered under section 497 (II) Cr.P.C., therefore, ad interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.
7. Instant petition is allowed accordingly.
Ad interim .