MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 4 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 148, 337-H(ii), 379, 427, 506, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of forcible entry into agricultural land, aerial firing, property damage, and snatching of a rifle. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause does not automatically entitle an accused to bail, particularly where the accused are nominated in the FIR, belong to a land-grabbing group, and have extensive criminal records indicating habitual criminal conduct. The court laid down the principle that the concession of pre-arrest bail can be refused in appropriate cases based on the conduct and criminal history of the accused, even if the offences fall outside the prohibitory clause. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the interim bail was recalled.
- Can pre-arrest bail be refused when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the fact that an offence is outside the prohibitory clause make it a bailable offence?
- Is the previous criminal record of an accused a relevant factor in declining pre-arrest bail?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Rafiq son of Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Farooq son of Ali Muhammad, Abdul Razaq alias Sahib son of Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Jamil son of Ali Muhammad and Shabbir Ahmad son of Muhammad Hanif, the petitioners, seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,101 of 2007 dated 22-2-2007, registered with Police Station Manga Mandi, Lahore for offences under sections 148, 337-H(ii), 379, 427, 506, 149, P.P.C.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners was that on the day of occurrence at 5-00 p.m. He along with Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Yousaf came to his land situated behind Mohlanwal Radio Station and started ploughing the same by means of three tractors; the present petitioners and their co-accused Sahib son of Amanat Ali along with 14/15 unknown persons, all armed with deadly weapons, forcibly entered into his agricultural land, started aerial firing, caused damage to their tractors, used filthy language and grappled with them; while leaving the spot they also snatched a rifle .222 bore with two magazines and 60 bullets belonging to the complainant party.
3. The petitioners applied for their pre-arrest bail, which was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 4-4-2007. Thereafter, they approached this Court and had been granted ad interim anticipatory bail on 6-4-2007.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Munir Ahmad S.-I. Police Station Manga Mandi, Lahore.
5. It is true that the offences charged in the F.I.R. Do not attract the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. But the fact remains that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. And palpably belong to a Qabza Group. A specific role has been attributed to them. The petitioners stand involved in a large number of criminal cases which include F.I.Rs, Nos.92 of 1992, 135 of 2006, 156 of 2006, 220 of 2000, 348 of 1991, 351 of 1991, 352 of 1991, 546 of 2004, 777 of 2006, registered with various police stations as such, they appear to be accustomed to committing criminal aces. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any malice against the complainant or the police. In appropriate cases concession of bail can be refused even if the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Reference can profitably be made to the case of Imtiaz Ahmad and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545. Likewise in the case of Afzaal Ahmad v. The State 2003 SCM R 573, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that mere fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
Does not mean that it has become a bailable offence. The Investigating Officer has held the petitioners to be guilty. The tractors belonging to the complainant, which had suffered severe damage at the hands of the accused, have been taken into possession. The petitioners by acting in a very oppressive and overbearing manner had tried to intimidate, overawe and browbeat the complainant party so that nobody could dare do anything against their wishes within the sphere of their influence. The case of Tahir Mehmood and others v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 112 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioners I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in their favour.
6. Resultantly this petition is dismissed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the petitioners in terms of this Court's order dated 6-4-2007 is hereby recalled.
Pre-arrest .
Cited by 1 case
- Moulana ABDUL AZIZ vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 297