NAZIR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Nazir Ahmed, who apprehended arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 50 of 2008 registered at Police Station Hyderi for offences under sections 324, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have stood guard with a pistol while co-accused attempted to commit murder, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the background of a long-standing matrimonial dispute and allegations of mala fide intent. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the specific role attributed to the applicant appeared to be a result of mala fide intentions to falsely implicate family members due to the existing enmity between the parties. The principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case against an accused appears to be motivated by mala fide intent arising from personal or matrimonial disputes, and the specific role assigned is questionable, the accused is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail to prevent harassment and arrest.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution's case is allegedly motivated by mala fide intentions arising from a matrimonial dispute?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an active role in the commission of the offence, justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' ZAFAR AHMED KHAN SHERWANI, J.--- This pre-arrest bail application is directed on behalf of the present applicant Nazir Ahmed who apprehends his arrest in F.I.R. No,50 of 2008 of Police Station Hyderi, under sections 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. Lodged on 8-1-2008 at about 9-30 p.m. In respect of the incident of the same day at about 10-00 p.m.
2. ' It was alleged in the F.I.R. That the applicant was accompanied with the nominated accused persons who are his close relatives including one of his brothers had entered in the house of complainant in order to commit murder of his son Saddam Hussain having been declared as "Karo" by them, but on the intervention of the complainant and his relatives, he was saved but the accused Ali Murad succeeded in slitting his neck with his Chhuri with the help of other nominated accused. During the incident it was alleged that the applicant remained standing armed with pistol in order to facilitate his accomplices in the commission of the offence before they decamped.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contended that admittedly matrimonial dispute between the parties is existing since long, as mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, the complainant has involved five persons in the commission of the offence including the applicant and his real brother Bagh Ali aged about 60/65 years who was granted bail on that ground by the trial Court. He further contended that there is no specific role assigned to him in the commission of the offence of attempting to murder the said Saddam Hussain except that he was armed with pistol, which is on account of mala fide intentions to rope in maximum number of persons of one family. He further contended that the applicant had been attending the trial Court till his ad interim pre-arrest bail was intact and now he prayed for the grant of bail.
4. ' Above arguments have been opposed by the learned State Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the complainant who submitted that the applicant's presence has been shown at the place of incident with the specific allegation that he was armed with a pistol and remained guarding the commission of the offence, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of ' I have carefully considered the above arguments in the light of the record.
5. Admittedly, there is enmity between the parties over declaring the victim Saddam Hussain as Karo on account of alleged illicit relations with her sister-in-law. The complainant has alleged that there were five persons who had tried to cause murder of victim and the role assigned to the applicant was that he guarded the co-accused who tried to slit the neck of the victim to cause death which appears to be mala fide to rope him falsely on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties. Had the applicant been there, he himself would have killed the victim. I am of the view that the applicant is entitled for the grant of pre-arrest bail because if the same is refused he would be arrested and harassed at the hands of complainant and the police. In view of the above, pre-arrest bail is allowed in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. He shall join his trial.