Pakistan Case Law← Search
2011 SCMR 1513

MUHAMMAD MUDDASAR vs THE STATE and others

Citation2011 SCMR 1513
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition No, 420-L of 2011
Date2011-06-28
Judge(s)Mian Saqib Nisar, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tasaddaq Hussain Jillani
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arose out of a petition for pre-arrest bail before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The primary legal question was whether an accused person, who was found innocent during police investigation and initially summoned by the trial court in a private complaint, is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail when faced with subsequent directions or apprehension of arrest. The Additional Prosecutor-General and the Investigating Officer submitted that there was no intent to arrest the petitioner, whereas the petitioner's counsel contended that the trial court directed his arrest despite the initial summoning order. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner had been declared innocent during the investigation and initially merely summoned. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court laid down that if an accused misuses the concession of bail, the trial court retains the authority to cancel the bail after providing a hearing.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an accused who was declared innocent during investigation and initially summoned in a private complaint is entitled to pre-arrest bail?
  • Can the trial court cancel pre-arrest bail granted to an accused if the concession of bail is misused?
  • Is a hearing required before the trial court cancels pre-arrest bail on the ground of misuse?
pre-arrest bailprivate complaintsummoning of accuseddeclared innocent in investigationbail bondscancellation of bailmisuse of bail concession

ORDER

' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Learned Additional Prosecutor-General submits that the learned trial Court has merely summoned the petitioner in a private complaint and there, is no order of his arrest. Adds that even the Investigating Officer, present in Court, does not want to arrest the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was prompted to move the pre-arrest bail petition because the learned Trial Court notwithstanding the initial order of summoning the petitioner directed his arrest.

3. Admittedly the petitioner was declared innocent during investigation and initially the learned trial Court had merely issued summons. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to convert this petition into appeal and allow the same and subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, lie is admitted to pre-arrest bail. It is however, made clear that in case he misuses the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel the same after hearing him.

Cited by 4 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search