ADNAN ASLAM and others vs STATE
The petitioners approached the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 492/2004 registered under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Liaqatabad, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail when no specific role or injuries were attributed to them except mere presence, a cross-version had been presented, and mala fide was alleged. The court held that since no specific role was attributed to the petitioners and their cross-version could not be refuted by the State, their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons are assigned only general presence without specific attribution of injuries and a plausible cross-version exists, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when no specific role or injury is attributed to the accused?
- Does the existence of an unrefuted cross-version bring a case within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is general presence at the scene of an occurrence sufficient to deny bail when mala fide is alleged?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(ii), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners have approached this Court through the instant petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 492/2004 dated 14.10.2004 u/S. 324/34 PPC 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 FIR. 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 Aslani 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' Addl. 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 I.O. 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 u/S. 497(ii) Cr.P.C., therefore, ad interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.
7. Instant petition is allowed accordingly.