QAISAR ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of ad interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 452, 324, 148, 149, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of entering the complainant's office with armed individuals, confining staff, and stealing mobile phones, a laptop, and documents at gunpoint. The petitioners argued that the case was a counterblast to a previous complaint filed by them against the complainant and that they were innocent. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioners were specifically nominated in the First Information Report, stolen articles remained unrecovered, and investigation had confirmed their guilt. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any mala fide or malice on the part of the police or the complainant to falsely implicate them. Finding that the petitioners were specifically assigned a role and that the investigation found them guilty of illegal entry and theft, the Court refused to grant the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail and recalled the ad interim bail previously granted.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when they are specifically nominated in the FIR and stolen articles remain unrecovered?
- Does the existence of a prior complaint against the complainant automatically establish mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail a matter of right when the investigation has found the accused guilty of the alleged offenses?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- The petitioners were allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 4-7-2006, in case F.I.R. No,193, dated 26-5-2006 registered under sections 452, 324, 148, 149, 380, P.P.C. At Police-Station Model Town, Lahore. The petitioners seek confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the said case.
2. Succinctly the prosecution story as per F.I.R. Is that on 20-5-2006 at 4-00 p.m. The petitioners along with 20 armed persons entered into the office of the complainant and confined him and other staff in a room and snatched three mobile telephone sets. They also took away one computer laptop and other valuable documents on gun point.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are innocent in this case; that earlier on the complaint of petitioner No,2 was lodged with Police Station Defence Area on 10-4- 2006 against the complainant of the instant F.I.R. Resultantly as counterblast the present F.I.R. Was lodged against the said petitioner and his brother, who are Directors of the parent company. The premises are being used by the complainant as well as by the petitioners and question of trespassing and entering the same does not arise.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail. They contend that the petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And stolen articles are yet to be recovered from them. There is no mala fide and malice on the part of the police or the complainant to falsely involve them in the case and that no extraordinary circumstances exist in favour of the petitioners for confirmation of their pre-arrest bait.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioners were nominated in this case and stolen articles are yet to be recovered from them during investigation. No ill-will, mala fide and malice on the part of the police or the complainant have been found on the record. Specific role had been assigned. As per the investigation of A.S.P./S.P.O. The petitioners were found guilty while entering illegally in the office of the complainant and by causing harassment to the staff had stolen the record of the complainant company. The petitioners have failed to point out any material or mala fide against the police to falsely involve them in the case. In such-like cases the petitioners are not entitled to concession of bail. Reliance is placed on Khurshid Ali and 9 others v. The State 2006 YLR 2239. The case being not fit for grant of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, the petition is dismissed whereby ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners was recalled.