MUHAMMAD MOOSA and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by applicants Muhammad Moosa, Rustam, and Abdul Sattar seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 220 of 2004 registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mehar, wherein the applicants contended they were falsely implicated and no recovery was effected from them. The core legal question pertained to whether the applicants were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of any recovery and in the light of alleged false implication. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicants had already been extended interim pre-arrest bail, the same merited confirmation. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail previously granted under such circumstances may be confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
- Are accused persons entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when no recovery has been effected from them?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed where false implication is alleged by the applicants?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Bail is claimed by applicant Muhammad Moosa, Rustam and Abdul Sattar in Crime No,220 of 2004 for an offence under section 382, P.P.C. It is stated that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this Crime, complainant has also lodged F.I.R. Against other persons being Crime No,207 of 2004, Police Station, Mehar. No recovery has been effected from them. Applicant under the circumstances were extended pre-arrest bail vide order dated 13-9-2004, same is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
2. Pre-arrest ,
Cited by 1 case
- Wazir Ali and others vs The State 2020 SHC 1108