AKHTAR HUSSAIN alias AKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of the nature of the injuries attributed, the civil dispute between the related parties, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The court held that considering the minor nature of the injuries, the underlying family and civil disputes regarding a plot, and the fact that the challan has already been submitted without objection from the State, the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, injuries are minor, and mala fides stemming from a civil or family dispute are apparent.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when a case does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does a civil dispute and family tension provide sufficient grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Is bail confirmed when the challan has already been submitted and further investigation is not hampered?
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.- Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case has been made up only due to tension between the families and the complainant is also related to the applicant being his cousin. He has further submitted that the nature of the injury, which has been alleged by the complainant shows that although serious harm could be caused under the alleged circumstances but only minor injuries have been attributed and that injury on the elbow . Is not because of the hatchet and may be because of the fall of the complainant on the ground. He has further submitted that complainant has involved not only the applicant but his other close relatives and this has been done only to restrain the applicant and his relatives from utilizing their plot. He has also pointed out that the applicant was on duty on the day of, incident and certificate can be submitted to that extent.
2. The learned State Counsel has no objection to the confirmation of the bail on the ground that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the challan has already been submitted, therefore, investigation or the proceedings will not be affected in any way if the applicant remains on bail.
3. ' In the circumstances, keeping in view the nature of injury and the allegations in respect to civil dispute and rival claims, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant/accused on 22-5-2006 is confirmed in the same terms.
4. ' Bail application stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- Noor Ali vs The State 2021 SHC 170