AKMAL RAZA and another vs STATE and another
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving allegations of abduction and house trespass under Sections 342, 449, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances surrounding the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a 17-day delay, casting doubt on its veracity. Furthermore, the Court noted existing litigation between the parties, including pre-emption and declaration suits, suggesting the case was motivated by enmity and mala fide intent. Crucially, one of the alleged abductees recorded a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 denying the abduction. Holding that the petitioners had been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an FIR is delayed, there is prior enmity, and evidence (such as a Section 164 statement) contradicts the prosecution's version, the accused is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR create sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the existence of prior civil litigation between parties be considered evidence of mala fide intent in a criminal case?
- What is the impact of a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the prosecution's case during bail proceedings?
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 H(II), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 473/14 of 07.10.2014 offences under Sections 342, 449, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Alapa, District Multan on the complaint of one Hafiz Bashir Ahmad son of Ali Muhammad.
2. The prosecution version as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioners along with four other accused persons armed with pistols entered in the house of the complainant and started searching the house. The petitioners were allegedly found talking in loud voice that if complainant Hafiz Bashir Ahmad is found by them then they will kill him. It is further contended that when the complainant could not be traced out, the petitioners along with co-accused abducted servants of the complainant Abdul Karim along with Muhammad Imran along with them who were later recovered by the police.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly, the date of occurrence as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is 20.09.2014, whereas, same was reported to police on 07.10.2014 after the delay of 17-days which creates doubt in the veracity of the contents of the F.I.R. This on the record that the complainant Hafiz Shabbir Ahmad previously got lodged F.I.R. No, 284 dated 14.06.2014 offence under Sections 337 H(II), 427, 447, 148 and 149 in Police Station Alapa, District Multan against the petitioners who was later admitted to the pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. Admittedly, there are pending litigations inter se the parties according to which, the complainant had purchased a piece of land from the brother of petitioners against which the Petitioner No, 1 has filed a suit for pre-emption against the complainant which is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Multan. In the same manner, the petitioner Akmal Raza has also filed a suit for declaration against the complainant and others which is also pending adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Mult an.
5. Perusal of record further reflects that one of the alleged abductees namely Abdul Karim got recorded his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate concerned in which he deposed that he Abdul Karim was not abducted by the petitioners and no such occurrence has taken place as mentioned in the F.I.R.
6. All the above circumstances, prima facie, depict that the petitioner have been roped by the complainant due to previous enmity between the parties and mala fide intention and ulterior motives on the part of the complainant.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petitioners are entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
The ad-interim bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of their bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- each with one surety each in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. However, it is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on the trial of the case.