ZAHOOR AHMAD alias BHAWAL SHER and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a case registered under sections 354, 148, 149, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated and declared innocent in four separate police investigations, with only the final investigation finding them guilty. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the conflicting investigation reports, the fact that co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail, and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, noting that the High Court could entertain the bail application directly due to the apprehension of bias in the lower court and that the petitioners' case was supported by the fact that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the principle that grounds relevant to post-arrest bail are applicable to pre-arrest bail considerations.
- Can the High Court entertain a pre-arrest bail application directly when the lower court has already expressed an opinion on the merits of the case regarding co-accused?
- Are the grounds available for post-arrest bail applicable when considering a petition for pre-arrest bail?
- Does the fact that an accused was declared innocent in multiple police investigations entitle them to the concession of bail?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.--- Submits that a false and frivolous case bearing F.I.R. No,280 of 2005 dated 30-7-2005 under sections 354, 148, 149 and 506, P.P.C. Has been registered at the Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, malafidely against the petitioner.
2. It is further contended that the petitioners have been found innocent in the four investigations conducted by (i) Muhammad Ashraf, S.-I. (ii) Saghir Hussain, S.-I. (iii) Kalbe Sajjad Inspector and finally by the D.S.P. (Investigation) Mian Channu. All these Investigating Officers found that no such occurrence ever took place and cancellation report was prepared by them. In last investigation conducted by Muhammad Saleem Maan, D.S.P. (Investigation) the petitioners were found guilty. It is also submitted that in order to protect the petitioners' honour and respect, they may be granted pre-arrest bail as the case has been registered malafidely and to bring bad name to them.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail petition.
4. Arguments have been heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the petitioners did not move before the learned Sessions Court for their pre-arrest bail for the reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu has already expressed his mind while rejecting the pre-arrest bail applications of the co-accused having similar role. The High Court can entertain pre-arrest bail of the accused. Reliance is place on the case of Muhammad Akbar Samoo and another v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1473 and Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 446.
6. Khair Din, petitioner, is stated to be armed but did not cause any injury to the complainant victim and relying on Abdul Raheem and others v. The State 2003 YLR 545, the petitioners are entitled to bail. Even otherwise the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail, as it is the question of liberty of the present petitioners. They were declared innocent during the three investigations and it was only in the last investigation that the petitioners have been found guilty and the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P..C. Grounds available to the petitioners at the time of post-arrest bail can also be taken into consideration at this stage. Mst. Zubaida Parveen v. State 2004 M LD 1812 is relied upon. Post-arrest bail has already been granted to the co- accused and the role of the present petitioners and the said co-accused is the same, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the confirmation of bail before arrest. In this regard Gulsher v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1482 is referred.
7. Under the circumstances, the pre-arrest bail already -granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ vs The STATE and others 2020 P Cr. L J 73