MEHMOOD ALAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mehmood Alam, in connection with F.I.R. No. 295/2008, registered under Sections 399 and 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was named in the F.I.R. as having fled the scene of an alleged dacoity preparation, was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated due to mala fides involving the Investigating Officer, while the prosecution argued that sufficient material existed to connect him to the crime. The Court held that the prosecution failed to produce sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. Furthermore, noting that the petitioner had already joined the investigation, the Court found no evidence of criminal intent at that stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000.
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to produce sufficient material to connect the accused with the alleged offence?
- Does joining the investigation constitute a valid ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 401, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. Mehmood Alam petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,295 dated 6-5-2008, registered under sections 399/401, P.P.C. At Police Station Badami Bagh, Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Sarwar, S.-I.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 5-5-2008 at 11-30 p.m., Muhammad Sarwar, S.- I./complainant was on patrolling duty who received a spy information that some armed persons were present in Qazafi Colony Bangali Bagh with intention to commit dacoity. On this information the police party headed by complainant conducted the raid and with the help of police officials, apprehended two persons namely Amjad Pervez alias Babu and Muhammad Aslam at the spot while the petitioner succeeded in fleeing away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the facts mentioned in F.I.R. No offence' against the petitioner is made out. He has joined the investigation and was involved in this case falsely on account of mala fide of the Investigating Officer who in fact under the influence of in- laws of his sister with whom their family disputes are going on has involved the petitioner in the case in hand.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General submits that the petitioner is named in F.I.R. Who ran away from the spot and there is sufficient material against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence and he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. In support of the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. Prosecution has not produced sufficient material to connect the petitioner with the commission of the crime. The petitioner has already joined investigation of this case and at this stage it cannot be said that the petitioner had any intention to commit the offence. Hence, this application is allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22-10-2008 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.