Muhammad Saleem vs The State
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Saleem in respect of FIR No. 198 registered at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara, concerning offences under Sections 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail where the incident appears to be a traffic accident resulting from an attempt to overtake on a narrow path, compounded by an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and a background of ill-will. The Lahore High Court held that the four-day delay in FIR registration, the absence of conventional weapons, the nature of the collision between carts, and potential mala fides bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the incident prima facie appears to be an accident rather than a deliberate criminal act, and merits of the case must be considered.
- Whether an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR makes a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the incident appears to be a road accident rather than a deliberate criminal act?
- Whether the absence of conventional weapons and the use of carts in a collision support a plea for pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 279, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.- Muhammad Saleem petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 198, dated 11.4.2007 registered at Police Station Chuchak Distt. Okara in respect in respect of offences under Sections 337- F(i)/337-F(iii)337-L(ii)279 P.P.C
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R, lodged at the instance of Mustafa complainant is that he alongwith his father was going to his home on a cart. When, they reached at the paved road near Thatha Jindhran Wala the petitioner who was also driving a cart struck his cart with that of the complainant party due to which the complainant as well as his father were run over the cart, In said collision Abdul Karim father of the petitioner received injuries. Hence the F.I.R.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R, reveals that it was simpliciter a case of accident during which the injured P.W. Had received simple injuries. He adds that the petitioner has been involved in this case due to the mala fide of the police as well as the complainant. He maintains that one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Akram had refused to support the prosecution. Rather he had sworn an affidavit to vouch the innocence of the petitioner: On the basis of the said submissions, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of prearrest bail.
"
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been straightaway noticed that the F.I.R, in this case was got registered with an inordinate delay of four days which by itself makes the case of the petitioner as that of further inquiry, It has been further observed that the petitioner had not used any conventional weapon to cause injuries to the injured P.W. Admittedly the injured P.W.
Fell down from his cart after being hit by the cart driven by the petitioner. According to the Police Officer present in Court during the investigation it was found that the petitioner while driving his cart had tried to overtake the cart of the complainant at a narrow path. The facts narrated in the F.I.R, as well as the result of the investigation show that possibility cannot be ruled out that it was a case of an accident similicater. Considering the background of ill-will between the parties the question of registration of false due to the mala tides of the complainant party cannot be ruled out straightaway.- A case of further inquiry has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Law of pre- arrest bail is not a static law and while deciding the pre-arrest bail application merits of the case cannot be ignored. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cases of Meeran Bux v. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347), Muhammad Ismail v. Ghous Bux and another (1990 PCrLJ 2013) and Aftab Gul v. The State (1989 PCrLJ 1599).
6. For all the reasons stated above, this application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.5.2007 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.