MUHAMMAD ASHIQ vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No. 1095 of 2008 registered under Sections 457, 380, and 215 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura, involving allegations of cattle theft and subsequently demanding extortion money termed as Bhoonga for their return. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that pre-arrest bail was not warranted, noting that the petitioner had a criminal record involving eleven similar cases, appeared to have committed the offense according to the investigation, was required for recovery purposes, and failed to establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who has a criminal record of involvement in similar cases?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when the accused is directly implicated by the investigation and required for recovery purposes?
- Whether the absence of prosecution mala fide disentitles an accused from obtaining pre-arrest bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 215, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.- Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1095/08 under sections 457/ 380/215, P.P.C, registered with Police Station Ferozewala District Sheikhupura.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is to make theft of the cattle heads from the shed of the complainant 11 months before.
' The tracker traced the footprints leading towards the petitioner's house and on demand of return of these cattle, petitioner has demanded Rs,50,000 as Bhoonga.
3. Petitioner in person argued that he is innocent and has falsely been involved with ulterior motive without any evidence against him.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G, assisted by counsel for the complainant opposes these grounds.
5. Heard. Petitioner is having record of involvement in 11 cases of the same nature, list is produced.
According to the result of the investigation, he has committed the offence and is required for recovery purpose. No mala fide of the prosecution to involve him in the case could have been pointed out. Therefore, the case of the petitioner for grant of the pre-arrest bail is not made out.
Dismissed accordingly.