ABDUL QADEER KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in connection with F.I.R. No. 150 of 2008, registered under sections 447, 511, 337-H(ii), 379, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail given their conduct and the allegations against them. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioners had misused the concession of pre-arrest bail by repeatedly failing to pursue their previous applications before both the trial court and the High Court. The Court observed that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R. with distinct roles and that there was no prima facie evidence of mala fide on the part of the prosecution. The key principle laid down is that the extraordinary remedy of pre-arrest bail is not available to accused persons who engage in dilatory tactics, such as filing applications and subsequently failing to appear or prosecute them, thereby demonstrating a lack of bona fides.
- Whether an accused who repeatedly fails to prosecute previous bail applications is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the specific naming of an accused in an F.I.R. with a distinct role preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail in the absence of mala fide?
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel seeks pre-arrest bail of the petitioners who stand implicated in F.I.R. No,150 of 2008, dated 16-5-2008, under sections 447, 511, 337- H(ii), 379, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Ghar Maharaja, District Jhang.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. On 11-5-2008, while the complainant was working on his land, petitioners trespassed and started firing, he could save his life barely while hiding himself in the poultry farm. The petitioners/accused also took away his mobile phone and Rs.5200. The earlier bail application for pre-arrest was dismissed by this Court on 30-7-2008 on account of non- prosecution. Likewise, their bail was also refused on 13-6-2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot on account of non-prosecution. The above two orders show that petitioners have been misusing extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. Even otherwise, petitioners are named in the F.I.R with a specific role. Prima facie, there is no element of mala fide. Their first bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 30-6-2008 but in spite of A surrendering themselves, petitioners had been playing hide and seek by filing, application for pre- arrest and then not appearing as narrated above.
3. For the above reasons, this bail application is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.