ROOP KHAN alias ABDUL RAOOF vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal matter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that he was found innocent in successive police investigations and the medical evidence supported a tentative view of false implication. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was declared innocent in multiple police investigations and the injury attributed to him was classified as Shajah-i-Khififah, which likely resulted from a fall, a case for pre-arrest bail was made out. The petition was accepted, and the pre-arrest bail was confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Whether an accused found innocent in successive police investigations is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the medical opinion and description of injuries play a vital role in determining mala fide or false implication for pre-arrest bail?
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.-Pursuant to the order dated 4-10-2006 the petitioner is present along with his learned counsel.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.
3. It has been argued that the petitioner has been found innocent in successive investigations conducted by the Investigating Officer, then D.S.P. Mr. Masood Tariq and D.S.P. Nisar Cheema. The learned. State counsel argued that opinion of police officer is not binding on Court.
4. The petitioner is attributed causing of Injury No,2 on the person of Sajjad Ahmad whose injuries noted by the Medical Officer are described below. (1) An abrasion 6 c.m. x 0.3 c.m. On lateral side of lower part of lower arms 9 c.m. Above elbow joint (2) An abrasion on back of L side of head 3 c.m.
Below the ear measuring 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m.
5. The Examining Medical Officer declared both the injuries as Shajah-i-Khififah. Even the description of Injury No,2 suggests that it was most likely the result of a fall on some rough surface.
Petitioner has been found innocent in successive investigations. Prima facie, his implication is false, based on some other consideration.
6. In this view of the matter this petition is accepted and petitioner's prearrest bail already granted vide order dated 4-10-2006 is confirmed provided he furnishes 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.