Shahbaz Hussain vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in relation to F.I.R. No. 231/04, registered under Sections 337-A(2), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner alleged that the case was registered mala fide due to a pending civil dispute regarding house ownership involving a Sub-Inspector. The State opposed the bail, asserting that the petitioner was found guilty during the investigation, which was conducted by two Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) who were independent of the alleged influence. The court examined the allegations of mala fide and the investigation report provided by the DSP (Legal). The court held that because the petitioner's name and specific role were mentioned in the F.I.R. and he was found guilty by two independent DSPs, the claim of mala fide could not be sustained. Consequently, the court refused the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, dismissed the application, and recalled the interim bail previously granted to the petitioner.
- Can a plea of mala fide be sustained when the accused is named in the F.I.R. and found guilty during an independent investigation?
- Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary concession that can be denied if the accused is implicated by investigation findings?
- Section 337-A(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.- The petitioner filed this application for pre-arrest bail in F:I.R. No. 231/04, dated 21.10.2004 under Sections 337-A(2)/337-F(i)/34, PPC at P.S. Laxian District Bhalwal.
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. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was registered mala fidley. In this context he submits that a civil suit is pending between the petitioner and one Ejaz, SI regarding the ownership of a house. He submits that the F.I.R, has been registered by said SI, Ejaz, though he was not working as a Moharrir at the time of its registration. He submits that the petitioner has been involved mala fidley in view of the above background.
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 SI, 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 SI. According to him, the investigation was conducted fairly; justly and in accordance with law.
5. The name of the petitioner with a role is mentioned in the F.I.R. He has been found guilty by two DSPs, therefore mala fide cannot be attached and for the same reasons extra-ordinary concession of bal 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.