Amir and another vs The State and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 994/15, registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura, involving offences under Sections 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail despite being named in the FIR. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, confirming the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that there was an unexplained twelve-day delay in the registration of the FIR, suggesting potential deliberation and consultation. Furthermore, the Court noted that no specific role was attributed to the petitioners, as a single injury was assigned to multiple accused, and the petitioners had no prior criminal record. The Court emphasized that the petitioners were not hardened criminals and that the recovery of weapons was irrelevant due to the significant lapse of time since the occurrence. The key principle established is that where there is unexplained delay in FIR registration and vague allegations against the accused, pre-arrest bail is appropriate to prevent misuse of the criminal process.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when a single injury is attributed to multiple accused persons?
- Is the recovery of weapons a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail when significant time has elapsed since the occurrence?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337N(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C. Amir and Sarfraz petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.994/15, dated 12.08.2015 registered at Police Station Factory Area, Sheikhupura in respect of offences under Sections 337A(i), 337A(ii), 337L(2), 148, 149 PPC.
2. The instant bail petition was filed by Sheikh Muhammad Usman, Advocate on behalf of the petitioners on 15.09.2015, but afterwards on the last two dates of hearing i.e. 22.09.2015 and 23.09.2015 and even today on third round of calls, learned counsel for the petitioner has not entered appearance to argue the case. Same is the position of complainant, who entered appearance before this Court on the last date of hearing and sought time to engage the services of a learned counsel to represent him, but today nobody has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant. This is bail before arrest and already much water has flown under the bridge, therefore, I do not feel it appropriate to adjourn this petition only due to non-availability of counsel for the parties and would like to decide the same with the able assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General. Having gone through the contents of this petition as well as record produced by Arshad Sub Inspector , it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail before arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage.
Although the petitioners are named in FIR, yet the fact remains that there is a delay of twelve days in registration of FIR, which has not been explained by the compl ainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got recorded after due deliberation and consultation. Moreover , no specific role in the commission of alleged occurrence has been assigned to the present petitioners and only general allegatio n of inflicting injuries on the head of the complainant is leveled against them. It has also been noticed with concern that one injury on the head of Iftikhar Ahmad Dogar complainant/injured has been attributed to three persons i.e. the petitioners and their co-accused Salamat, so the question as to which of the accused caused this injury and which of the accused have been implicated falsely by widening the net shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Even otherwise, it is an admitted position of the case that the petitioners are previous non-convict and never involved in any other case of such like nature; neither they are hardened, dangerous, desperate criminals nor they have committed the alleged offence on the pretext of honour , therefore, section 337N(2) PPC also comes to their rescue. The person of the petitioners cannot be handed over to police only for the purpose of effecting recovery , which otherwise has lost relevancy with the passage of time as occurrence in this case took place on 30.07.2015.
In such situation, recovery of weapons of offence after the elapse of two and half months is of little help to the prosecution.
In this regard, reliance can be placed on 2014 SCMR 1349 . The petitioners have already joined the investigation, which is complete to their extent, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending them behind the bars so as to enable them to come out of jail on post arrest bail after few days.
3. For what has been discussed abov e, false implication of the petitioners by the complainant with ulterior motive and malafide intention cannot be ruled out of consideration, therefore, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.