MUHAMMAD ALAM and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon an application for pre-arrest bail by three applicants. The core legal question concerns the confirmation of pre-arrest bail where some applicants are placed in column No. 2 of the police report and a separate application under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is pending before the trial court regarding their joinder in the trial, while another applicant has been challaned. The court held that under these circumstances, the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants should be confirmed, subject to further legal action being taken in accordance with law if the trial court allows the pending application under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be confirmed while leaving open the procedural recourse for the trial court to determine the joinder of accused persons whose names appeared in column No. 2 of the police report.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when an application under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is pending before the trial court for joining accused whose names are in column No. 2?
- Does placement of an accused's name in column No. 2 of the police report render a pre-arrest bail application infructuous?
- Section 193, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---Present applicants were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by this Court per order dated 12-4-2010. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicants that the names of Muhammad Alam and Miskeen have been shown in column No,2 whereas case of applicant Yaseen has been challaned. Learned counsel further says that though names of Muhammad Alam and Miskeen have been shown in column No,2 and he would have not pressed their bail application, but the complainant side has moved to the trial Court under section 193, Cr.P.C. praying, therein to join them in the trial as well and . such application is pending adjudication.
2. ' Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the confirmation of bail. He says that accused persons are involved in a heinous offence which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and their bail may not be confirmed. He says that there is ample material available on record to connect the applicants with the commission of offence: ' Learned DPG has argued that since names of applicants Muhammad Alam and Miskeen are shown in column, No:2 this bail application has become infructuous, but he does not say anything about applicant Yaseen. However, he says that this bail application be dismissed as having become infructuous.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and 'have gone through the record. Since applicant Yaseen has already been challaned and for joining of applicants Muhammad Alam and Miskeen in the trial, application under section 193, Cr.P.C. is pending adjudication before the trial Court. In these circumstances, order dated 12-4-2010 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
4. ' Needless to mention here that if the complainant party succeeds in getting application under section 193, Cr.P.C. allowed by the trial Court, further action in accordance with law be taken.
5. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.
Cited by 1 case
- Khair Muhammad Versus State 2026 YLR 1083