Sh. QASIM alias BHAI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 282 of 2006 registered under sections 324, 302, 109 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail for the offence of abetment in a murder case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting that statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were promptly recorded implicating the petitioner, the deceased had also nominated the petitioner, and no mala fide on the part of the prosecution was shown. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail can only be allowed on the ground of mala fide, which must be established by the petitioner.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted without establishing mala fide on the part of the prosecution?
- Whether an accused charged with abetment under section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is entitled to pre-arrest bail when nominated by the deceased and witnesses?
- Does a delay in the registration of an F.I.R. automatically warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. JAVIAD SARFRAZ, J - Petitioner seeks bail in case F.I.R. No,282 of 2006, dated 3-5-200j6, under section 324/34, P.P.C. With added section 302/109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura.
2. This case was heard on 24-7-2006 and was adjourned for the petitioner had submitted that there was a delay of one day and 13 hours in registration of that the same was registered after due deliberation. It was further contended that the allegations against the present petitioner is abetment under section 109, P.P.C. And the complainant is not the witness of this offence, that nothing is to be recovered and has no link with the accused, that no motive is attributed.
3. Learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this petition.
4. Two witnesses Mahmood Ahmad son of Maqbool Ahmad and Muslim son of Sardar in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have levelled allegations against the present petitioner. These statements were promptly recorded; therefore, there was not any occasion for deliberations by the complainant party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain the reasons as to why these two persons would depose against the petitioner. The deceased on 13-5-2006, also nominated the present petitioner and had stated with vehemence that it was only on account of the petitioner that this occurrence had occurred. The petitioner has not been able to show any mala fide as to why the case had been registered against him. Pre- arrest bail can only be allowed on the ground of mala fide, which is missing in the case. Allegations are that the murder took place only due to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any pre-arrest bail concession.