MUHAMMAD KHURSHID-UL-HASSAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner filed an application seeking interim protective bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 43/2004, registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Alfalah, Karachi. The petitioner contended that he was abroad from March 1, 2004, to September 5, 2007, and was therefore not present in Pakistan on the date of the alleged occurrence, March 21, 2004. He sought protective bail to enable him to approach the competent court in Karachi for regular bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, claiming absence from the country during the commission of the alleged offense, was entitled to interim protective bail to facilitate his appearance before the trial court. The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, held that the circumstances warranted the grant of interim protective bail. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner interim protective bail for a period of ten days, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, to allow him to approach the Sessions Judge, Karachi, or another competent court for further relief.
- Can the High Court grant interim protective bail to an accused to enable them to approach a trial court for regular bail?
- Is a claim of absence from the country during the occurrence of an offense a relevant factor for the grant of interim protective bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN . BOKHARI, J.-The petitioner has prayed for grant of interim protective bail in case F.I.R No,43/2004 dated 21r3-2004 under sections 324, 34, P.P.C registered at Police Station Alflah, Shah Faisal Town Karachi East.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to F.I.R occurrence took place on 21-3- 2004 but on the said date (21-3-2004) petitioner was not present in Pakistan, as he remained abroad from 1-3-2004 to 5-9-2007. Further submits that petitioner came to know about the present case on 5-9-2007 and that police intends to arrest him, therefore, he has prayed for interim protective bail for few days in order to approach Sessions Judge, Karachi. He has relied upon the case of Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan v. The State (1990 P.Cr.L.J.617) and Ch. Allah Pitta v The State (1989 P.Cr.L.J.2152). Learned D.P.G. Submits that this Court has jurisdiction to grant interim protective bail and in the circumstances of the case, petitioner deserves interim protective bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with care. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused caused injuries on the person of Asghar Khan Niazi. As stated earlier the case of petitioner is that at the relevant time, he (petitioner) was abroad. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of interim protective bail to the petitioner for ten days. As such he is allowed interim protective bail till 24-9-2007 in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in order to enable the petitioner to approach learned Sessions Judge, Karachi or any other competent Court. However, it is made clear that this order would cease to have any effect after 24-9-2007. This order would not prejudice case of either party.