ANWAR ALI and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a pre-arrest bail application filed by four applicants accused of offences under Sections 382, 506(ii), 147, 148, 149, 504, and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of their interim pre-arrest bail, given that the offences included Section 382, which carries a maximum punishment of ten years and falls under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court of Sindh accepted the applicants' arguments, noting a significant delay of forty-five days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the absence of any recovery from the applicants despite their participation in the investigation. The Court held that these factors raised a strong possibility of false implication with ulterior motives. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR combined with a lack of recovery can justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether an unexplained delay of forty-five days in lodging a First Information Report can be a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of any recovery from the accused during investigation support the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed in cases involving offences that fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if there is a possibility of false implication?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This is a bail before arrest application filed by Anwar Ali, Haji Arbab Ali, Sajjan and Lakhmeer who are involved in Crime No,1 of 2004 under sections 382, 506(ii), 147, 148, 149, 504 and 337-H(ii), P.P.C.
2. Of Police Station, Khero Dero.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are narrated in F.I.R. Heard both the learned counsel.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that on the last of hearing complainant Saleem Bughio was present and stated that the matter is being patched up between the parties. Mr. Jatt submitted that in fact the matter has already been patched up and has been reduced into writing but is not filed in Court so far. He further submitted that F.I.R. Was lodged after 45 days of the incident, no recovery has been made from the applicants though they have joined the investigation. Challan has already been submitted and he conceded that there is no further need of the applicants to be kept in police custody and no prejudice will be caused to the complainant/prosecution if their earlier on 4-8-2004 is confirmed.
5. ' Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the maximum punishment of section 382 is 10 years and therefore, is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. ' I considered the submissions.
7. ' Agreeing with the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. Was lodged after 45 days, no recovery has been made from them, therefore, there is possibility of false implication of the applicants in this matter with ulterior motives cannot be ruled out. The application is therefore, allowed the earlier order granting interim bail to the applicants is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
Cited by 1 case
- Wazir Ali and others vs The State 2020 SHC 1108