Aslam vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Aslam alias Aqa, who is accused in F.I.R. No. 671/2008 registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of his involvement in a firing incident where he allegedly attempted to shoot the complainant's brother, while his co-accused successfully inflicted a firearm injury. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was found guilty during the investigation, the weapon of offence remained unrecovered, and the co-accused responsible for the injury was still at large. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not appropriate when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause, the accused is implicated in the investigation, and the prosecution requires custody for recovery and further investigation, absent any evidence of mala fide on the part of the police.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail if the alleged offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to recover the weapon of offence constitute a valid ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation has found the accused guilty and the co-accused remains at large?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ORDER, M.A. ZAFAR, J. -- Muhammad Aslam alias Aqa petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 671/2008, dated 19.7.2008 registered with Police Station Sadar Sheikhupura under Sections 324/34, P.P.C, on the written application of Muhammad Tayyab Khan.
2. As per allegation, on 18.7.2008 at about 9.00 p.m. Complainant younger brother was intercepted by the present petitioner armed with the 8 MM and his brother Akram alias Akri arefied with carbine. Petitioner fired with his rifle at Zahid Mehmood but he pushed up the barrel of the rifle and fire went in air. Meanwhile, Akram alias Akri co- accused of the petitioner fired with his carbine, which landed at the right thigh of Zahid Mehmood who fell down. Hue and cry attracted the PWs and the accused while, firing made good their escaped.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R, and that the petitioner has not caused any injury to the injured PW and thus no useful purpose would be served by giving him into police custody.
4. On the other hand learned D.P.G, has opposed the grant of bail and submits that weapon of offence is yet to be recovered from the petitioner. He has been found guilty during the investigation conducted so far and co-accused of the petitioner is still at large.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that from the statement of the complainant and the PWs offence under Sections 324/34, P.P.C, is ex facie constituted which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Grant of bail to the petitioner will deprive the prosecution from properly investigating the case. There is nothing on record that intended arrest of the petitioner by the police is tainted with mala fide. The main accused whose fire hit the injured is yet to be arrest by the police. Resultantly, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.