RIAZ AHMAD and others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of house trespass, causing hurt, and mischief, registered under sections 448, 337-H(i), 337-F(i), 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the offences, the police investigation findings, and the existence of prior civil litigation between the parties. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, observing that the police investigation had deleted the non-bailable section 380, leaving only bailable offences. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners' involvement appeared questionable due to pending civil litigation and conflicting investigation reports regarding the presence and arming of the accused. The key principle laid down is that where the police investigation finds that the remaining offences are bailable and the prosecution fails to establish sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the alleged overt acts, particularly in the context of a pre-existing civil dispute, the concession of pre-arrest bail should be confirmed.
- Does the deletion of non-bailable sections during police investigation entitle an accused to the concession of bail for the remaining bailable offences?
- Can the existence of pending civil litigation between parties be a ground for considering the possibility of false implication in a criminal case?
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when police investigation reports fail to connect the accused with the alleged overt acts?
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.No,54 of 2006, dated 10-2-2006 for offences under sections 448/337-H(i)/337-F(i)/427/148/149, P.P.C.Registered at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 5 armed with a rifle, .12-bore shot gun and rifle .7-MM respectively and petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 armed with Sotas along with other co- accused launched an attack on the house of the complainant, injured his wife and sister, demolished a room and the boundary wall of the house and took away jewellry, cash and a licensed shot gun belonging to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had been falsely involved in the case on account of a dispute in respect of the property in question regarding which civil litigation was pending between the parties that the police after investigation had deleted section 380, P.P.C.And the remaining offences were all bailable offences and as such the" petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail as of right. Further contended that the police after investigation had opined that petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 were not present at the spot and petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 although present were not armed with any weapons.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Stateassisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that it was a day-light occurrence as such there was no chance of mistaken identity; that the F.I.R. Was prompt and the petitioners had been nominated with the specific roles assigned each of them in the FIR; that all the accused while duly armed with guns etc. Attacked the complainant party demolished the house of the complainant; that section 452, P.P.C.
Was fully attracted in the case of the petitioners which was not a bailable offence. Further contended that the investigation had been completed and the mala fides on the part of the police for falsely involving the petitioners could not be established; that deletion of section 380, P.P.C. Was unwarranted.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Section 380, P.P.C. Was deleted by the police vide Zimini No,5, dated 22-2-2006 and the remaining offences are all bailable offences. It is an admitted fact that the parties have a dispute regarding the property where the occurrence took place. Civil suit is pending between the parties in which the petitioner's side has failed a contempt petitioner against the complainant party. False involvement of the petitioners on account thereof cannot be ruled out. The record shows that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 altogether present at the spot were not armed as alleged in the F.I.R. And petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 were not present at the spot at all. The police conducted two investigations and in both the investigations no overt act was found to have been committed by the petitioners except petitioner No,2 who is alleged to have caused minor injuries on the person of Mst. Zohra Bibi.
8. A perusal of the record reveals that there is not enough evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offences alleged against them. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order, dated 8-3-2006 is hereby confirmed.