MUHAMMAD AKMAL vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition for pre-arrest bail arising from a criminal case involving allegations of abduction and illicit relations. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner has made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that no case for pre-arrest bail is made out, noting that the considerations for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely different, the petitioner failed to join the investigation before the Investigating Officer, and the statement of the alleged victim had not yet been recorded. The key principle laid down is that failure to join investigation and the distinct, higher threshold of considerations for pre-arrest bail preclude the granting of pre-arrest relief where such prerequisites are unsatisfied.
- Are the considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest the same?
- Does failure to join the investigation disentitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Whether a case for pre-arrest bail is made out when the statement of the alleged victim has not been recorded.
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- In continuation of my order, dated 5-7-2006, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case against the petitioner is totally false; that he was present on his duty in his office on the day of occurrence; that respectables of the area have submitted an affidavit to the effect that he never abducted Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, daughter-in-law of the complainant; that he had no illicit relations with her; that the police in spite of clear direction given in the petition did not record version of the petitioner and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C .
2. On the other hand learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that delay has been explained in the F.I.R.; that complainant was tenant with uncle of petitioner; that respectable person would not level allegation of Zina against his own real daughter; that petitioner has not joined the investigation; that in suit for dissolution of marriage filed by Mst.
Kalsoom, no house number and no street has been mentioned therein and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This is bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. Neither the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer to join the investigation nor statement of Mst. Kalsoom Bibi has been recorded so far. No case for bail before arrest is made out. This petition stands dismissed.