Muhammad Ashiq And 7 Other vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by eight petitioners involved in FIR No. 542/05, registered under sections 379, 452, 448, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of indiscriminate firing, theft, and their presence at the scene. The court held that the petition should be dismissed. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR, assigned a criminal role, and found guilty during the investigation. Furthermore, the court noted that recovery of stolen items had been effected from one of the petitioners, and statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 corroborated the complainant's version. The court established the principle that where an investigation is completed, the accused are named in the FIR, and incriminating material exists, pre-arrest bail is not warranted, especially when no mala fide or ulterior motive is attributable to the investigating officer.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the accused are named in the FIR and found guilty during the investigation?
- Does the recovery of stolen items from an accused affect the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 corroborate the complainant's allegations?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER The petitioners filed this bail application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioners stand involved in FIR No. 542/05, dated 10.10.2005 registered under section 379/452/448/148/149 PPC at P.S. Hujrah Shah Muqeem, Distt. Okara.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, all the petitioners are named in the FIR and shown armed with fire- arms of different nature. They resorted to indiscriminate firing and stole different things including an amount of cash.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case was registered with delay of more than two months. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is no specific injury attributed to the petitioners. The learned counsel also submits that section 452 PPC was deleted during the course of investigation and basically it is a property dispute between the parties which caused the registration of the present case.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR and during the course of investigation they have been found guilty. He further submits that according to the record complainant is owner and in possession of the property. He submits that recovery has been effected from the petitioner No. 3. The learned counsel for the State endorsed the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant and adds that statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., also support the contents of the FIR. The learned counsel for the State submits that all the eight petitioners have been found guilty.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this case investigation has been completed.
The learned counsel for the petitioners himself contended that during the course of investigation section 452 PPC was deleted; that means that he has no serious dispute with the quality of investigation and during the same investigation all the petitioners have been found guilty and connected with the occurrence, it may also be pointed out that six accused persons by the same I.O. Have been declared innocent, In view of the above, no ulterior motive or mala fide can be attributed to the I.O. Or other police officers. Petitioners stand named in the FIR and an act of criminal role is assigned to them. Recovery of certain stolen items has also been effected.
Statements of PWs under section 161 Cr.P.C, also provide strength to the statement of the complainant, In view of the above, I do not consider the present case fit for granting extra ordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, hence this petition is dismissed.