BAHZAD SARWAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 124 registered on 30-3-2007 at Police Station Pakpattan under section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and sections 506 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of extending threats, the recovery of photographs, and the petitioner having previously been a fugitive from law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offences were prima facie attracted, recoveries connected the petitioner to the crime, and the conduct of the petitioner including being a proclaimed offender disentitled him to pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that while offences may fall outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pre-arrest bail can be declined based on the specific facts, incriminating recoveries, and the conduct of the accused as a fugitive from law.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does being declared a proclaimed offender disentitle an accused to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether recovery of incriminating material during investigation connects the accused to the crime for the purpose of bail?
- Section 25, Telegraph Act 1885
- Section 25(B), Telegraph Act 1885
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,124, dated 30-3-2007 for offence under section 25 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and sections 506 and 452, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Pakpattan.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have threatened the complainant with dire consequences in order to restrain her brother from pursuing criminal case regarding a theft lodged vide F.I.R. No,346 dated 26-7-2006.
3, The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the provisions of section 25 of the Telegraph Act are not attracted to the facts of the case; that the provisions of sections 506 and 452, P.P.C. (subsequently added by the police) are also not attracted; that the witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Had got their statements recorded with the police after 15/25 days, therefore, the same are of no consequence and that in fact the petitioner has been involved in the case as the complainant was interested in contracting marriage with him and on his refusal the petitioner has been involved in the case who is, therefore, entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition.
5. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he extended threats of making public the pictures of the complainant and conversation recorded clandestinely in order to restrain the brother of the complainant from pursuing the case lodged against the co-accused of the petitioner regarding theft committed in the house of the complainant. During investigation two pictures of the sister, of the complainant were recovered from his possession which are on the judicial file of the case. The provisions of section 25(B) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 as well as sections 506 and 452, P.P.C. Are prima facie attracted in the case which are all non-bailable offences.
Although the offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., nevertheless in such-like cases the facts of the case are to be kept in view. In my view, the facts disclosed do not warrant grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The recovery of two pictures of the sister of the complainant from the petitioner further connect him with the prosecution case. The mobile phone with which the petitioner had recorded the conversation and taken pictures of the complainant is yet to be recovered from him. The Police Officer present in Court with record has brought to the notice of the Court that an Arbitrator was appointed in the case on the request of the petitioner who held several meetings and ultimately found that the petitioner and his co-accused were responsible for the theft committed in the house of the complainant. Consequently two cheques were issued by the Arbitrator for Rs,1,50,000 on behalf of the petitioner which are on the police file.
This further lends support to the prosecution case which cannot be termed as false. It has also been noticed that the petitioner has remained a fugitive from law for a considerable period and had been declared a proclaimed offender by the learned lower Court. The argument that the petitioner had been involved on account of his refusal to marry the complainant is devoid of any force and appears to be farfetched as there is not an iota of evidence on the record in support of the said contention.
6. For what has been stated above, I am not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of pre- arrest bail to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition being without merit is dismissed.