KHALID and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of arson. The complainant alleged that co-accused Leemo and two unknown persons entered his house, sprinkled kerosene, and set fire to articles in a room. The applicants were placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, indicating they were found innocent by the investigating officer, who had recommended disposal of the case under 'C' Class. The applicants contended that the FIR was delayed, they were not present at the scene, and the Sessions Judge had erroneously issued non-bailable warrants against them without following the procedure under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, it was noted that the main accused had already been granted bail and the eyewitnesses had not supported the prosecution's case. The Court, finding merit in the applicants' contentions and noting the concessions made by the prosecution, confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants.
- Can a court issue non-bailable warrants against an accused without first declaring them an absconder under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the placement of an accused in Column No. 2 of the challan and a recommendation for 'C' Class disposal by the investigating officer constitute valid grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. GHULAM RABBANI, J.---Allegations as per F.I.R., lodged on 13-2-2004 at 2100 hours is that on the said date at about 1530 hours co-accused Leemo by caste Charan and two unknown persons of whom one was armed with pistol and another was holding a can of kerosene oil entered into house of complainant Arbab, sprinkled the kerosene in southern side room of the house, thereafter co- accused Leemo set the articles in said room on fire.
2. ' It is stated that under the order of Sessions Judge routed through 2nd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Dadu challan was submitted placing the present applicants in Column No.2.
3. Contentions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the F.I.R. Is delayed by five hours without any plausible explanation, the B applicants were not available at the scene of offence at the time of offence, the only allegation against the present applicants is that fire took place at their instance. Learned Sessions Judge issued N.B.Ws. Against the applicant wrongly treating them absconders. Moreso, without declaring them so under section 87, Cr.P.C. Though in the challan they were shown innocent and the Investigating Officer had requested for disposal of the case under "C"
4. Class. Further that two of the applicants are blind and have no worldly interests.
5. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar while not disputing the factual aspect of the case as stated above conceded that the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to applicant be confirmed. He submitted that the C main accused Leemo has already been enlarged on bail. The two eyewitnesses whose names appear in the F.I.R. Have also not supported the prosecution case.
6. I have given my due attention to the arguments of both the learned counsel and keeping in view the above facts and circumstances I am of 'the view that the applicants have made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail already granted to them by my learned brother Muhammad Sadiq Leghari, in the circumstances, I, therefore, confirm the interim-pre-arrest bail granted vide order, dated 12-4-2004. This application stands disposed of accordingly.