KHURSHID ALI and 9 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by ten petitioners in connection with F.I.R. No. 310, registered under sections 379, 386, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of mala fide intent and the specific roles attributed to them in the prosecution's case. Upon reviewing the record, the Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the use of deadly weapons, no injuries were sustained. The Court held that petitioners Nos. 1, 3, and 9 were not entitled to bail because specific roles were assigned to them, and the recovery of crime weapons and property remained outstanding, with no evidence of mala fide intent on the part of the complainant or police. Conversely, the Court granted bail to the remaining petitioners, finding only general allegations against them and concluding, based on a tentative assessment, that they had not committed the alleged offence. The petition was thus dismissed for three petitioners and allowed for the others.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when specific roles are assigned and recovery of crime weapons is pending?
- Does the absence of injuries in an incident involving deadly weapons entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Should pre-arrest bail be granted when there are only general allegations against the accused?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 386, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.--- The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,310, dated 10- 7-2005 registered under sections 379/386/337-H(2)/148/149, P,P.C. With- Police Station Sharaqpur District Sheikhupura on the grounds that the petitioners have falsely been involved in the instant case with mala fide intention of the complainant and the police in order to disgrace and humiliate them.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the State opposed the prayer for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. According to the prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R., deadly weapons were used in the commission of offence. However, nobody received any injury in the incident. -Specific role has been assigned to Khurshid Ali, Shahid Ali and Hussain Haider, petitioners Nos.1, 3 and 9. They have failed to point out any material or mala fide with the complainant and the police to falsely involve them in the present case. Recovery of crime-weapons and property is yet to be made. They are thus, not entitled to concession of bail. Their petition is dismissed.
5. As far remaining petitioners, there is general allegation against them. It appears that they have not committed the offence alleged against them in my tentative assessment. Their petition is thus, allowed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- PINNU KHAN and anothers vs ISHTIAQ and anothers 2012 P Cr. L J 1781