Liaqat Ali And Another vs The State
This matter concerns three consolidated criminal petitions arising from FIR No. 142/2004, involving both pre-arrest and post-arrest bail applications. The petitioners were accused of entering a shop, assaulting the complainant, and committing theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail, considering the nature of the offences, the investigation findings, and allegations of mala fide. The court held that the pre-arrest bail petitions for two petitioners must be dismissed, as the familial relationship between the parties negated the claim of mala fide and the petitioners were specifically nominated with a role in the FIR. Conversely, the court granted post-arrest bail to the other two petitioners, noting that they were no longer required for investigation and that the remaining offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure laws. The key principle established is that where no mala fide is demonstrated in the complainant's case, particularly among close relatives, pre-arrest bail is not warranted, whereas post-arrest bail may be granted if the accused is no longer needed for investigation and the offences are non-prohibitory.
- Is pre-arrest bail warranted when the parties are closely related and no mala fide is shown in the complainant's allegations?
- Does the fact that an accused is no longer required for investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail for non-prohibitory offences?
- Can bail be granted when the primary offence involving theft has been deleted during the investigation?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.- This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5740/B/2004 titled "Liaqat Ali, etc. Versus The State" Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5938/B/2004 titled "Muhammad Shehbaz versus The State" and Crl. Miscellaneous No. 6032/B/2004 titled "Abdul Rasheed versus The State" as all the three petitions are outcome of the same FIR.
2. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5740/B/2004 Liaqat Ali and Mumtaz petitioners seek confirmation of pre- arrest bail in case FIR No.' 142/2004, dated 21.5.2004 registered under Sections 380, 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337- L(ii)/34, PPC at Police Station City, District Toba Tek Singh whereas in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5938/B/2004 Muhammad Shahbaz and in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6032/B/2004 Abdul Rasheed petitioner have prayed for grant of post-arrest bail in the same FIR.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Siddique complainant lodged the above-mentioned FIR with the allegation that on 20.5.2004 the petitioners armed with their respective weapons entered into his shop and beat him as well as snatched Rs. 1,00,000/-. Petitioners Abdul Rasheed and Muhammad Shehbaz were arrested by the Police while petitioners Liaqat Ali and Mumtaz petitioners succeeded in getting ad interim pre-arrest bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Respective petitions of all the petitioners were dismissed from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, hence these petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners have joined the investigation and it has been found that no money was stolen from the shop of the complainant as such Section 380 PPC has been deleted while the other offences are bailable except Section 337-A(ii) PPC which does not fall under the prohibitory clause and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners, therefore, they are entitled for the relief of bail. He has placed reliance on:-
1. Amjad Hussain versus The State (2004 PCrLJ 550)
2. Javed Iqbal Awan versus The State (1990 SCMR 1994)
3. Ata Ullah Bhatti versus The State (2002 PCrLJ 705)
4. Muhammad Ashraf versus The State (1999 PCrLJ 1668)
5. Waryam and another versus The State (1999 PCrLJ 1980)
6. Muhammad Rafiq versus The State (1986 SCMR1480)
7. Muhammad Aslam versus State (PLJ 1999 Cr.C.(Lahore) 1504)
8. Shadi Khan versus The State (2002 PCrLJ 147)
5. The petitions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant who has argued that the investigation was not conducted fairly and the complainant Muhammad Siddique is real brother of the petitioners, therefore, there is no mala fide for false involvement of the petitioners: recovery of the amount is yet to be effected from petitioners Liaqat Ali and Mumtaz. Regarding petitioners Abdul Rasheed and Muhammad Shehbaz it has been argued that they have been found guilty during the investigation, therefore, these petitions merit dismissal.
6. Learned counsel for the State has also opposed these petitions.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
8. Liaqat Ali and Mumtaz petitioners were nominated in the FIR with a specific role. Rivalry between the parties has not been disputed by the petitioners. The parties are closely related inter se, therefore, there is no mala fide on the part of the complainant for false implication of the petitioners. The case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, Liaqat. Ali and Mumtaz petitioners are not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail so, their petition stands dismissed.
9. As regards Muhammad Shahbaz and Abdul Rasheed petitioners they are under incarceration and no more required for the purpose of investigation and have been sent in judicial lock-up. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, therefore, they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(fifty thousand rupees only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.