AURANGZEB and others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 364, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of the complainant's sister. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail in view of the delayed F.I.R., variance between two police investigations, lack of direct or indirect evidence, and prior civil litigation and family disputes indicating potential mala fides. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners called for further inquiry into their guilt, noting the nine-month delay in lodging the F.I.R., the conflicting police investigations, and the evident mala fides arising from prior family disputes. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners. The key principles laid down include that conflicting police investigations create doubt rendering neither reliable at the bail stage, and unexplained protracted delay in reporting an offense coupled with previous civil disputes points toward mala fides warranting pre-arrest bail.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR without plausible explanation justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can reliance be placed on police investigations that are at variance with each other regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused?
- Does the existence of prior civil litigation and family disputes between the parties establish mala fides for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---Aurang Zaib, Jabbar, Muhammad Saleem and Jalal-ud-Din alias Jalli petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,364/2006 dated 10-7-2006, registered under sections 364/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Langrana Tehsil Chiniot District Jhang.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners, as per the narration of the F.I.R, are that they had abducted the sister of the complainant.
'Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that false allegations have been levelled against the petitioners by the complainant as there is no direct or indirect evidence available against the petitioners to connect them with the commission of the offences under which the petitioners are liable to be tried. No incriminating material is available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence as alleged by the complainant that her sister was abducted by the petitioners and was subsequently done to death. He further submits that extra judicial confession made by one of the petitioners Aurang Zaib has no evidentiary value which has not been corroborated by any other independent source. He also submits that section 364, P.P.C. Is not made out against the petitioners as there is no evidence available on record by which it could be proved that the petitioners had abducted the sister of the complainant. He further submits that there is a delay of nine months in lodging the F.I.R, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. He lastly argues that there was a family dispute between the abductee and one of the petitioners Aurang Zaib as there existed family 'dispute as well as civil litigation, therefore, mala fides on the part of the complainant are clearly proved.
4. Learned D.P.G. Opposes the bail application and submits that all the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of abduction. He further argues that all the petitioners have been held guilty in police investigation. He, however, submits that two investigations were conducted in the instant case and both the investigations are at variance.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role but the facts and circumstances of the case prove the fact that the petitioners are not involved in the abduction of the sister of the complainant because there is a delay of nine months in lodging the F.I.R. After the occurrence. Had abduction taken place by the petitioners then there was no reason for the complainant not to involve the petitioners in the instant case. It appears that she was no sure as to whether the petitioners are the ones who had committed abduction. Complainant had made an application to Justice of Peace for registration of a criminal case against suspected accused persons who were made respondents in the application and none of the petitioners had been arrayed as respondents therein meaning thereby that at the time of filing an application before the Justice of Peace she did not implicate the petitioners with the commission of the offence. Moreover, there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record which could connect the petitioners with the commission of the offence. There is no eye-witness account of the occurrence. Two investigations were conducted in this case according to which in first investigation petitioners were B declared innocent but subsequently were declared guilty. When two investigations are at variance then no reliance can be placed on any of the investigations as nothing can be determined about the guilt or innocence of the accused persons. Admittedly, there was a family dispute between both the parties and civil litigation was also pending, therefore, mala fides on the part of the complainant against the petitioners are quite evident.
6. For the foregoing reasons I am convinced that the case of the petitioners falls within the ambit of further inquiry into their guilt. I, therefore, confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Pre-arrest .