SHAHBAZ HUSSAIN vs STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 231 of 2004 registered under Sections 337-A(2), 337-F(i) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Laksin, District Bhalwal, involving allegations of causing injuries with Sotas alongside co-accused. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail on the ground of mala fide registration of the case due to a pending civil dispute involving a police sub-inspector. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that since the petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with an ascribed role and was found guilty during the investigation conducted by two Deputy Superintendents of Police, the plea of mala fide could not be sustained. The court established the principle that specific nomination coupled with a consistent finding of guilt during a fair investigation rules out extraordinary concessions of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted on the mere allegation of mala fide when the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and found guilty during investigation?
- Does a pending civil dispute with a police official constitute sufficient ground for establishing mala fide in a criminal case?
- What is the effect of an investigation conducted by senior police officers negating allegations of police influence on a bail application?
- Section 337-A(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The petitioner filed this application for pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No, 231 of 2004, dated 21-10-2004, under Sections 337-A(2)/337-F(i)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Laksin, District, Bhalwal.
2. 2.Briefly, according to the F.I.R., complainant was attacked while he was passing through a street in front of his house by petitioner and his co-accused Azhar son of Saeed and Saeed son of Jalal. The petitioner was armed with Sota. Co-accused Saeed and petitioner caught-hold of the complainant and co-accused Azhar gave Sota blows to the complainant on his head. After a while co-accused Mumtaz and Mukhtar also armed with Sotas arrived at the place of occurrence and caused injuries with Sotas.
3. 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was registered malafidely. In this context he submits that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and one Ejaz, S.-I. regarding the ownership of a house. He submits that the F.I.R. has been registered by the S.-I., Ejaz, though he was not working as a Moharrir at the time of its registration. He submits that the petitioner has been involved malafidely in view of the above background.
4. 4.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been found guilty during the course of investigation. DSP (Legal) was also summoned by the Court to make statement in view of the above allegations against S.-I., Ejaz. The above allegation or story of mala fide has been denied by the DSP (Legal). According to the DSP (Legal), investigation has been conducted by two DSPs who could not be influenced by the said S.-I. According to him, the investigation was conducted fairly, justly and in accordance with law.
5. 5.The name of the petitioner with a role is mentioned in the F.I.R. j He has been found guilty by two DSPs, therefore, mala fide cannot be attached and for the same reasons extraordinary concession of bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed and interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 7-12-2005, is recalled.