Ashiq Hussain vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Ashiq Hussain, who was accused of abetment in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations against him and the timing of the recording of witness statements regarding abetment. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the FIR lacked specific details of the date, time, or place of abetment, that statements of witnesses to the abetment were recorded twelve days after the occurrence, and that no recovery was to be made from him. Consequently, the court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner, laying down the principle that vague allegations of abetment coupled with delayed witness statements and absence of recovery can warrant confirmation of pre-arrest bail under the purview of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused charged with abetment is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the FIR lacks specific details of the date, time, and place of abetment?
- Does the recording of witness statements regarding abetment after a significant delay constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where no recovery is to be made from the accused and no useful purpose would be served by his incarceration?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail before arrest petition, contends that the petitioner is accused of abetment only, he has falsely been implicated, was not present at the spot, nothing has to be recovered from him, no useful purpose shall be served by sending him behind the bar and it a fit case for bail before arrest. He has placed reliance on 1997 SCMR 850, 1997 PLR 390 and 2002 SCM R 1299.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by complainant's learned counsel submits that four co-accused of the petitioner, who had fired at the deceased, are still at large, and are Proclaimed Offenders, those co-accused are also involved in other murder, cases, conduct of the petitioner is not above-board because he was allowed interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the date of hearing he did not appear, his counsel Withdrew the bail petition, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., no mala fide Or ulterior motive is alleged against the complainant and the petitioner is not entitled to the pre arrest bail.
3. Heard. As far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct that his name is mentioned in the FIR but neither date, time or place of abetment has been mentioned in the FIR nor names of the witnesses of abetment were mentioned in it. Moreso, the occurrence in question had taken place on 4th June, 2006 while the statements, of the witnesses of abetment were recorded by the police after 12 days of the occurrence. He was not present at the spot, is accused of abetment only, nothing has to be recovered from him and no useful purpose shall be served from by sending him behind the bar. His case is fully covered by sub-section (2) to section 497, Cr.P.Fc. And the case to his extent is one of further inquiry, In the afore-referred circumstances, the ad interim pre arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order of this Court. Dated 13.7.2Q06 is hereby confirmed.