MUHAMMAD BILAL vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon a petition filed by Muhammad Bilal seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 462 of 2007 registered under sections 376 and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station City Samundri, District Faisalabad, on the allegation of attempting to commit Zina-bil-Jabr. The core legal question involves determining whether extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is warranted where the accused is charged with a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause and has been found guilty during the investigation, notwithstanding contentions of false implication and delay in lodging the F.I.R. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish mala fide or previous enmity required for pre-arrest bail and noted his specific role in a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and refused pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail will be refused in heinous offences falling within the prohibitory clause where the accused is implicated with a specific role and fails to substantiate mala fide or previous enmity.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without establishing previous enmity or mala fide?
- Does a delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a case involving an attempt to commit Zina-bil-Jabr?
- What are the essential requirements for the grant of pre-arrest bail in heinous offences?
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- Muhammad Bilal, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R.
No,462 of 2007, dated 2-10-2007, offences under sections 376/511, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, City Samundri, District Faisalabad with the allegation that the petitioner attempted to commit Zina-bil-Jabr with the daughter of the complainant.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; that there is inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging of the F.I.R. Without any explanation; that during the investigation, it has been proved that neither the door of the P.C.O. Was locked from outside nor the door was broken by the witnesses nor the wearing clothes of the victim were torn or damaged in any manner and even not a single mark of violence was found on the person of the alleged victim.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned D.P.G. Appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed this bail petition contending that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence with specific role.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. With specific role. During the investigation, the petitioner found guilty of the offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring on record previous enmity between the parties to involve the petitioner falsely in this case, which is the basic requirement for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. In view of the attending circumstances, no case for grant of pre- arrest bail is made out, hence this bail petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL SALAM and another vs THE STATE 2012 MLD 1615