MUHAMMAD ALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Ali, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a violent dispute between parties regarding a marriage. The applicant sought pre-arrest bail after the Sessions Court dismissed his initial application. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of a counter-version in a separate F.I.R. The Court held that while a counter-version existed, there was no allegation that the injured parties were armed with firearms or had caused injuries to the accused, thereby negating any justification for the applicant's use of a firearm. Consequently, the Court found no evidence of mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the prosecution. The application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed, and the interim bail order was recalled, establishing the principle that pre-arrest bail is not warranted where the accused's use of force is disproportionate and lacks evidence of mala fide intent by the police.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail solely on the existence of a counter-version in a separate F.I.R.?
- Does the absence of evidence that the complainant was armed justify the use of a firearm by the accused in a self-defense claim?
- What is the threshold for establishing mala fide or ulterior motives to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' This is a pre-arrest bail application filed by accused Muhammad Ali, who is involved in Crime No,93 of 2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C., Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. The applicant had earlier moved the Sessions Court with similar application, which was dismissed by order dated 26-6- 2004. Hence this application.
2. ' The brief facts are that there was a dispute between the parties over marriage of one of co- accused Yasin Khan with the sister of two injured namely Orangzeb and Tahir Ali. On 14-6-2004 this dispute turned into violence and present applicant who is real brother of co-accused Yasin Khan, used fire arm and caused injury to two persons named above.
3. ' It is, however, not clear as to what is the nature of injuries which have been reserved and the final report has not been submitted by the Medical Officer. The challan has been submitted in Court.
4. ' Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. ' The learned counsel for the applicant, who is present with the applicant, submitted that admittedly there was a dispute between the parties and there is counter version also, which appears in the F.I.R. No,136 of 2004 lodged by Mst. Nasreen, wife of Yasin Khan against the present accused and his family members. He further submitted that according to the counter version in F.I.R. No,136 of 2004 the complainant is said to have started beating the applicant and Yasin Khan.
6. Thereafter, the applicant, who is his brother, fired at the leg of Orangzeb and caused him injury. He submitted that since there is counter version, the case of the applicant requires further enquiry and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. ' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail and submitted that admittedly the applicant had used a fire arm and caused injury to two persons on their legs and that there is no counter version to the extent that the complainant was also armed with weapon. He also contended that the firearm has been recovered at the pointation of the co- accused and that this is no case of bail before arrest and no mala fide or ulterior motives can be attached to the prosecution. The learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for the State.
8. ' I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the applicant has used fire-arm and caused injury at the legs of two persons namely Orangzeb and Tahir Ali.
9. Even if the counter version is taken into consideration, there seems to be no plausible reason for the applicant to use the arm-fire, as there is no allegation in counter case that two injured were armed with fire-arm or injured IA any of the accused.
10. ' In view of the above, I do not find any mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the police and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
11. 'The application, is, therefore, dismissed and the order of interim pre-arrest bail is recalled.
12. Pre-arrest .
Cited by 3 cases
- HABIBULLAH SHAR vs The STATE 2014 MLD 1454
- OWAISULLAH KHAN and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 586
- SHOAIB AHMAD vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 898