FIDA HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon a bail plea filed by the applicants seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to the concession of bail where they were not apprehended on the spot, no stolen property was recovered from their possession, and the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The court held that the applicants' case warrants further inquiry as the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out and the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail ought to be confirmed when the accused are not arrested at the scene, no recovery is effected from them, and the charged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause.
- Are applicants entitled to bail when they are not apprehended on the spot and no stolen property is recovered from them?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the possibility of false implication cannot be straightaway ruled out?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOSA K. LEGHARI, J.---Bail plea has been pressed on the grounds that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. And that the prosecution has been motivated and acting maliciously.
2. ' Learned State Counsel submits that since the allegations are against co-accused Nazroo, the case of the applicants requires further inquiry as such, he has no objection.
3. ' It appears that neither the applicants were apprehended on the spot, nor the stolen property viz. Livestock were recovered from their possession. Possibility of false implication cannot be straightaway ruled out. The offence alleged does not fall within prohibitory clause as contained under section 497, Cr.P.C., thus the applicants to the concession of bail.
4. ' In view of the above circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.