Abdul Jabbar vs The State And Another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 354, 452, 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alleging house trespass, outraging modesty, and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for pre-arrest bail in light of a delayed FIR and a prior counter-case lodged by the petitioner's family in which the petitioner sustained injuries. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail as no specific role was assigned, general allegations were levelled, and the background of previous hostility supported the inference of mala fide. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail can be adjudged from the attending facts and circumstances, including prior hostility and counter-cases between the parties.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an FIR is lodged with a delay and appears to be a counter-blast to an earlier case?
- Is the existence of previous hostility and a counter-case sufficient to infer mala fide for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Whether general allegations without a specific role assigned in the FIR justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAYYED MAZHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.--- Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, Abdul Jabbar petitioner, by means of instant petition, has sought for his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 611, dated 10.11.2010, offence under Sections 354, 452, 337-L(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Khuddian, District Kasur.
2. Brief allegation against the petitioner, as per contents of F.I.R., is that on 8.11.2010 he alongwith other co-accused entered the house of the complainant and caused injuries to the women folk and also tried to outrage their modesty.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitoner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case by the complainant for satisfying ulterior motives, which admittedly was lodged after two days of the occurrence without plausible explanation. Learned counsel further states that as a matter of fact Noor Ahmed, uncle of the petitioner, lodged case. F.I.R. No. 609/2010 on 8.11.2010 against the accused persons in which the petitioner had sustained injuries and the instant case is counterblast to the same in order to build pressure. Learned counsel vehemently urges that in this background, case of the petitioner is fit for the relief prayed for.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition. It is stated that the petitioner is well nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role. It is next contended that as weapon of offence is yet to be recovered from him, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. But I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances of the case whether case of the petitioner qua grant of bail is made out or not. Admittedly case F.I.R. No. 609/2010 was lodged on 8.11.2010 against the accused person, by uncle of the petitioner and in that case the petitioner had sustained injuries. In the instant case no specific role has been assigned to the accused petitioner as general allegations have been levelled. In such circumstances, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case for satisfying ulterior motives, cannot be ruled out. I may also observe here that the ingredients of the mala fide is sin qua non for evaluating the case of pre-arrest and mala fide can be adjudged even from the facts of the case as is in hand. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate keeping in view the background of previous hostility available in this case.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded to hold that sufficient grounds exist to grant the relief prayed for. Resultantly by accepting this petition ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 29.11.2010 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.