REHMATULLAH alias REHMAT vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application filed by the applicant/accused Rehmatullah alias Rehmat seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case, following the refusal of the trial court to grant the same. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the primary allegation against him is of instigation in a heinous crime resulting in a fatality, coupled with previous enmity and a police investigation report placing his name in column No. 2 of the challan after finding him innocent. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegation of mere instigation and the police finding of innocence reflected in the challan, brought the case within the scope of further inquiry under the law. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety. The key principle laid down is that where police investigation declares an accused innocent and places his name in column No. 2, and the allegation is limited to instigation amidst admitted prior enmity, a case for further inquiry is made out warranting the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does an allegation of mere instigation in a heinous crime, coupled with a police report finding the accused innocent, make out a case for further inquiry warranting pre-arrest bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when previous enmity exists between the complainant and the accused?
- What is the legal effect of placing an accused's name in column No. 2 of the police challan on his entitlement to bail?
- Section 365-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' DR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, J.---The learned counsel contended that admittedly there is enmity between the applicant/accused and complainant and prior to this another case has been lodged by the complainant against the applicant/ accused where he has lodged case under sections 365-A, P.P.C. And 7, A.T.A., which is pending before the A.T.A. Court No,III, Larkana and earlier to that also there was some litigations.
2. ' The learned counsel further contended that regarding the instant case the applicant/accused obtained protective bail from the High Court, Sukkur Bench in Crl. Bail Application No, 679 of 2008 and during the protective bail he appeared before the trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge Hudood, Sukkur) in which the learned trial Court declined to admit the applicant on pre-arrest bail on the ground that on his instigation the incident was taken place when Mehmood son of Muhammad Bachal was died due to the firing and further that his name was included in the F.I.R.
3. On the basis of instigation and also that applicant/accused has been shown at the place of wardat in the heinous crime. Thereafter the applicant/accused have come before this Court.
4. ' Initially this Crl. Bail was filed at Sukkur, however not opposed to grant this interim bail. Admittedly there is only allegation against the present applicant is instigation. The learned counsel has also drawn attention of the Court on the letter of Superintendent of Police Investigation, Sukkur addressed to the Investigation Officer directing that the present accused/ applicant is innocent with other three accused and their names be shown in column No,2 of the challan and police has accordingly submitted the challan wherein the name of the applicant/accused is shown in column No,2.
5. ' All this above bring the case of the applicant/accused for further inquiry. He is admitted for pre- arrest bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. Police paper be also called.
6. ' The applicant/accused is directed to appear before the trial Court on the date of hearing.
Cited by 1 case
- Khair Muhammad Versus State 2026 YLR 1083