GULZAR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Gulzar Gopang, in relation to Crime No. 66 of 2006, involving offences under sections 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), and 504 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail, given allegations of a matrimonial dispute, potential police bias due to the complainant's brother being a constable at the relevant police station, and the rule of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Court held that the apprehension of humiliation, harassment, and false implication was well-founded due to the complainant's familial connection to the local police. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of a prior cross-case and the rule of consistency favoring the applicant. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is a reasonable apprehension of police harassment or false implication due to a complainant's influence within the local police force, and where the rule of consistency applies, pre-arrest bail is justified.
- Does the fact that a complainant's relative is a police officer at the station where the FIR is registered constitute valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Can the apprehension of humiliation and harassment at the hands of the police justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J. By this bail application, applicant Gulzar Gopang seeks bail before arrest in respect 'of Crime No, 66 of 2006 registered at Police Station, Staurt Ganj, District Shikarpur for offence under sections 337-A(ii), F(i) and 504, P.P.C.
2. ' Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that there was some dispute over matrimonial affairs in between complainant party and the applicant Gulzar who are relatives with each other. It is alleged by the complainant that he along with his P. Ws. Were present near Sabzi Mandi when at 6- 30 p.m. Applicant Gulzar along with three other persons came there and exchanged harsh words with the complainant party and during that applicant caused Soti blow which hit on the head of complainant while rest of the accused persons caused kicks and first blows to the complainant party.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.
4. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been granted interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide' order dated 16-2-2007 and since then he is attending the learned trial Court regularly and has not misused the concession of bail. He further submits that the injury caused by the applicant is declared as Shajah-I-Hashima which carries punishment up to ten years. He has further submitted that prior to this incident applicant himself was attacked by the complainant party at Naudero and such case was registered vide Crime No,61 of 2006. He further submits that brother of complainant is serving as police Constable at Police Station Staurt Ganj Shikarpur where the present F.I.R. Has been lodged and in case the applicant is arrested, he will be put to undue harassm ent and humiliation. He further submits that co-accused Chand has been granted bail by learned III- Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Shikarpur hence as per rule of consistency the applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail.
5. ' The learned State counsel while opposing the bail has submitted that the applicant is attributed direct role of causing injury at the head of complainant and two co-accused are still absconding.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The applicant has claimed that the brother of complainant is serving as constable at the police station where the F.I.R.
7. Was lodged and he apprehends humiliation, harassment and irreparable loss and injury to his reputation and liberty in case he is arrested. Since the brother of complainant is in police and posted in the same police station where the F.I.R. Was lodged possibility of false implication of the applicant coupled with harassm ent and humiliation at the hands of police cannot be ruled out.
8. Further more the punishment is up to ten years and the award of punishment is depending upon the circumstances of each case. Admittedly the matrimonial dispute exist between the parties.
9. ' For the above reasons the interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed vide order dated 4-4-2008 ' In case the applicant is found misusing the concession of bail the learned trial Court is at liberty to take action against the applicant is accordance with law.