Rana MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and otherss vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Rana Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Umar Butt, who were charged under sections 324/34 and 337-F-1 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners had previously been granted ad interim pre-arrest bail, which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution and on merits due to their absence. A prior bail application before the High Court was also dismissed on merits. The petitioners sought fresh pre-arrest bail, arguing that a new ground had arisen because two prosecution witnesses had recorded statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exonerating them. The Court rejected this argument, observing that the petitioners' conduct throughout the proceedings had been defiant and that they had attempted to suborn prosecution evidence by procuring these statements. Holding that the petitioners were abusing the process of law, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, reaffirming that repeated bail applications after dismissal on merits, coupled with attempts to manipulate evidence, do not entitle an accused to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Can an accused file a successive pre-arrest bail application based on statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a previous application was dismissed on merits?
- Does the procurement of exculpatory statements from witnesses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute subornation of evidence justifying the dismissal of a bail application?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail if their conduct throughout the proceedings has been defiant and abusive of the legal process?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F-1, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Rana Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Umar Butt stand involved in case F.I.R. No,218 of 2005 dated 18-4-2005, registered at Police Station, Factory Area, Faisalabad for offence under sections 324/34, 337-F-1, P.P.C.
2. Inter alia the allegation against the petitioners was that they had launched a murderous assault against the complainant wherein Muhammad Umar Butt petitioner had caused fire-arm injury to the complainant. The F.I.R. Had been registered as far back as on 18- 4-2005. The petitioners had applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, and were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail on 20-4-2005, however they failed to submit their bail bonds and on 28-4-2005 also absented themselves before the said Court, as a result of which their bail application had been dismissed for non-prosecution as also no merits. Thereafter, they approached this Court by means of Crl. Misc. No,3438/B of 2005, which petition had also been dismissed on merits on 10-5-2005. They have approached this Court again for their pre-arrest bail.
3. Ch. Abdul Rashid, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that a new ground has accrued to the petitioner in that the two witnesses of the F.I.R. Namely Shafique and Khadim Hussain had made statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate at Faisalabad in which the petitioners have been exonerated. He added that apart from that the complainant of the case had attacked at Muhammad Shafique witness for his having made such a statement and had caused him serious injuries. According to the learned counsel, this makes the case of the petitioners one of further inquiry entitling them to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel.
' In fact the conduct of the petitioners has been one of defiance all along. By procuring statements of witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. In fact they have prima facie tried to suborn the prosecution evidence. The petitioners have the audacity to approach this Court again after their bail application had been dismissed on merits. The petitioners are playing fast and loose with the process of law which cannot be allowed. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.