NAZIR AHMAD vs STATE etc
The petitioner Nazir Ahmad sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 61 of 2009 registered under Sections 324, 148, 149, and subsequently Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Thangi. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail when named in the FIR but assigned no specific injury or active role in the crime, having been merely attributed the act of snatching sugarcane from a woman and telling her to go home, alongside the implication of the entire family indicating potential mala fide. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific role or injury was attributed to the petitioner and the entire family was roped into the case, the circumstances justified confirming the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is appropriately confirmed where the accused is assigned a general role of mere presence without specific incriminating overt acts and the prosecution reflects potential mala fide in implicating an entire family.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when named in the FIR but attributed no specific injury or active role?
- Does the implication of an entire family in a criminal case reflect mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Nazir Ahmad seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 61/2009 dated 14.02.2009, under Sections 324, 148 & 149 PPC (Section 302 PPC was added later on), P.S. Thangi.
2. It is inter alia contended that no specific injury either to the deceased or injured PW has been attributed to the petitioner even no specific role has been attributed to him. The conclusion of the- investigation, qua role of the petitioner, is that he snatched sugar cane from woman namely, Mst.
Bushra and required her to go home; that the entire family of the petitioner has been involved in the present case, which reflects malice and mala fide of the complainant.
3. Conversely learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant with vehemence opposes the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner though is named in the FIR but no role has been attributed to him. He has been shown as merely present at the place of occurrence. The entire family stands involved in the case in hand by the complainant. In view of the above circumstances, the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner-accused is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.