EHSAN-UL-HAQ vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from F.I.R. No. 40 of 2005, registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif, under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-K(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail, alleging that the F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide intent to coerce a compromise, claiming the complainant party was the aggressor. The State and the complainant's counsel opposed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner had absconded and that proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had already been initiated against him. The core legal question was whether a petitioner against whom coercive proceedings for abscondence have been initiated is entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy reserved for innocent persons. The court established the principle that a petitioner who is subject to proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for abscondence is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Is a petitioner against whom proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have been initiated entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that can be denied to an absconding accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-K(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F. I. R. No . 40 dated 23-1-2005 registered under sections 324/337-A(i)/337F(i)/337-K(ii)/34, P.P.C. With Police Station, Saddar Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif, on the ground that the instant F.I.R. Has been lodged with mala fide intention just to pressurize the petitioner for compromise because actually complainant party caused injuries, to the petitioner side.
2. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for confirmation of bail by submitting that proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated against the petitioner and he is not entitled to the concession of the pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Vide order dated 24-5-2005 passed by the learned trial Court the proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated against the petitioner. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, which is granted to an innocent person. Resultantly, this petition is meritless and is dismissed.