MUHAMMAD ILYAS and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ashfaq in connection with F.I.R. No. 146 of 2006, registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura, for offences under sections 452, 379, 354, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of forcible entry, molestation, and theft. The Court held that the petitioners were duly nominated in the F.I.R. and failed to demonstrate any mala fides or specific reason for false implication by the complainant. The Court emphasized that the serious nature of the allegations, involving the outraging of the complainant's modesty, coupled with the need for recovery of stolen items, rendered the grant of pre-arrest bail inappropriate. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary concession that cannot be granted where the accused fails to establish malice and where the allegations involve serious criminal conduct requiring investigation and recovery.
- Is the mere assertion of a dispute sufficient to establish mala fides for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the failure to point out specific malice by the complainant justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail in cases of serious offences?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the accused is duly nominated in the F.I.R. and recovery is yet to be effected?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.- Muhammad Ilyas son of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Ashfaq son of Muhammad Ilyas seek pre-arrest bail in case F,I.R. No, 146 of 2006, dated 1-5-2006 registered with Police Station Mananwala District Sheikhupura for offences under sections 452, 379, 354, 147 and 149, P.P.C.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioners and their co-accused thirteen in number named in the F.l.R. And two/three unknown persons, who were all armed with Dandas was that they, in consultation with one and other, had forcibly entered the house of the complainant caught hold of the complainant, dragged her in the courtyard, tore her wearing apparels and molested her, during this transaction a gold ear-ring had fallen which was stolen by one of the accused persons, on commotion the witnesses were attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura who dismissed the same vide his order dated 7-6-2006. Thereafter they approached this Court and were allowed ad interim pre arrest bail on 20-6-2006.
4. I have heard Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ejaz Hussain Ghauri, Advocate, the learned counsel for the complainant as also Mrs. Shazia Khalil, Advocate, the learned State coupsel and have perused the record brought by the Gharib Alam A.S.-I., Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record it has been noticed that the petitioners have been duly nominated in the F.I.R. The petitioners are close relatives of the complainant and no reason for false implication had been pointed out by the petitioner. The mere assertion of the petitioners that there is some dispute regarding theft of pigeons will be of no avail to the petitioners unless mala fides have been specified. As already stated the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any malice being harboured by the complainant in implicating the petitioners in case of such a serious nature in which she also risks stigmatizing her own career. The recovery is to be effected from the petitioners who" were allegedly armed with Dandas. The conduct of the petitioners and their co-accused who were all armed with Dandas and had entered the courtyard of the complainant, dragged her an outraged her modesty is sufficient to refuse the discretion of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, there is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.