Mian BABAR FAROOQ vs HAFEEZ ULLAH and others
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon a petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant, seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, in a case registered under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the pre-arrest bail granted by the trial court suffered from any illegality, arbitrariness, or absurdity warranting interference by the High Court under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting bail was sound, supported by elaborate reasons, and that the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or absurdity. The court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a bail-granting order will not be interfered with under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless the order is arbitrary, absurd, or fanciful, with the principles governing such interference being pari materia with those applicable to the setting aside of acquittal orders.
- Whether pre-arrest bail granted by a trial court can be interfered with under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without showing the order to be arbitrary, absurd, or fanciful?
- Are the principles for interfering with a bail-granting order pari materia with the principles applied to the setting aside of orders of acquittal?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAJA MUHAMMAD SHAFQAT KHAN ABBASI, J.-Mian Babar Farooq son of Muhammad Shafi, who is complainant in case F.I.R. No, 1237, dated 12-11-2008, registered with Police Station Islampura, Lahore for offences under sections 409, 420, 468, 471/34, P.P.C., by filing this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail allowed to Hafeez Ullah son of Mian Rehmat Ali and Muhammad Ijaz, Inspector (respondents Nos.l and 2), by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide order dated 5-1-2009.
2. Precisely the allegation against respondents Nos.l and 2, according to the F.I.R, was that Hafeez Ullah (respondent No,l) while hatching conspiracy with Muhammad Ijaz, Inspector/Fire-arm Export (respondent No,2) has got procured report of the crime empties in favour of his brother Mubarak Ali, accused in case F.I.R. No, 122/2008, registered at the instance of the complainant for the murder of his son and nephew, Babar Ali and Hanif Umar, respectively.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the record as well as the order impugned herein. ,
4. It has been observed that when trial in murder case of son and nephew of the complainant was pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, he moved an application before the Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore alleging therein that on 11-7-2008, when he along with Haji Muhammad Saleern and Muhammad Hanif was present outside the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in order to. Pursue his case, flafeez Ullah (respondent No,l), who along with few other persons was also available there, made a disclosure that he after joining hands with Muhammad Ijaz, Inspector (respondent No,2) had got procured the report in his favour while getting changed the crime empties. Thereafter, he got registered the aforesaid case against respondents Nos.l and 2. Feeling imminent arrest at the hands of the police, the respondents approached the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore for grant of pre-arrest bail and the said learned Judge vide the impugned order allowed bail to the respondents. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Special Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record has given elaborate reasons for allowing bail to the respondents. For a bail granting order to be eligible to be interfered with under section 497(5), Cr.P.C., the same has to be arbitrary, absurd or fanciful. The discretion left in the Court under section 497(5), Cr.P.C, is pari materia with the principles, which apply to the. Setting aside of the orders of acquittal. Reference may advantageously be made to the cases of Mian Dad v. The State and another (1992 SCM R 1286) and Muhammad Tayyab v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 597. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such illegality or absurdity in the impugned order so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. Insofar as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no mala fide either on the part of the complainant or the police, which one of the prerequisites for grant of pre-arrest bail was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, is concerned, it is apparent from the impugned order, that the learned Special Judge in the concluding paragraph 7 observed that admittedly criminal case for the murder of son and nephew of the complainant is pending against Mubarak Ali, brother of Hafeez Ullah (respondent No,l) and probability of false involvement of the respondents cannot be ruled out keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.