KABEER AHMAD and others-s vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Kabeer Ahmad and others against the State before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, given their status as proclaimed offenders, delay in approaching the court, and incriminating material on record. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail as they remained fugitives from law for a considerable period after the registration of the case, were declared proclaimed offenders, and an eye-witness (a foot constable) along with other prosecution witnesses fully implicated them. Furthermore, the court noted that the statutory challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been submitted after completing proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the distinct considerations for pre-arrest bail were entirely lacking. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Are accused persons who remained fugitives from law and were declared proclaimed offenders entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Does the involvement of the accused as stated by an eye-witness and supported by a police challan disentitle them to pre-arrest bail?
- Are the considerations for the grant of bail before arrest different from those for bail after arrest?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- In continuation of my earlier order, dated 28-3-2006, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that P.W. Zubair Anwar has exonerated the petitioners through an affidavit; that he has not come because of illness of his brother; that no case is made out against the petitioners; that their involvement in the case is due to political rivalry because petitioner No, I 's father had contested election for the seat of Nazim and that it is case of bail before arrest,
2. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana submits that the ease was registered on 25-8-2005, the petitioners applied for bail before arrest for the first time in January, 2006 that the petitioners have been declared proclaimed offenders and that they are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. Perusal of the police file shows that apart from Zubair Anwar and Muhammad Ejaz Tahir P. Ws.
There is yet another eye-witness of the case i,e, a foot constable who has fully implicated the present petitioners coupled with the fact that challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted after having completed proceedings under sections 87/88 of Cr.P.C., case was registered as far back as on 25-8-2005, pre-arrest bail was moved by the petitioners for the first time on 21-1-2006, so they remained fugitive from law during the said period. Furthermore, it is a bail before arrest and considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are altogether different coupled with the fact that even otherwise ingredients for the grant of bail before arrest are very much lacking in this case, so, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.