MUHAMMAD JAVED vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Javed in connection with FIR No. 288/2014, registered under Sections 452, 436, 337-H(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Dhanot, District Lodhran. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the investigation's outcome. The Court observed that the FIR contained only general and collective allegations against 33 individuals, of whom 21 were declared innocent during the investigation. Furthermore, the petitioner had already joined the investigation, which was complete regarding him, and he had no prior criminal record. Finding that the petitioner's false implication due to malice could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where allegations are general and collective, and the investigation has cleared the majority of co-accused while the petitioner has cooperated fully, the denial of bail serves no beneficial purpose, thereby justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the FIR contains only general and collective allegations against a large number of accused persons?
- Does the fact that the majority of co-accused have been declared innocent during the investigation provide grounds for granting bail to the remaining petitioner?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed if the petitioner has already joined the investigation and the police report indicates no further need for custody?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Javed seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 288/2014 dated 28.07.2014 u/S. 452/436/337-H(2)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Dhanot District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the petitioner alongwith 22 nominated accused persons and 10 unknown accused persons entered into the house of maternal grandfather of the complainant, made aerial firing and also set on fire the cotton sticks.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Out of 23 nominated accused persons, 21 accused persons have been declared innocent, during the course of investigation whereas one Muhammad Bakhsh, who was arrested, was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.01.2015. A bare perusal of the F.I.R, reveals that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners rather a general and collective allegation against as many as 33 persons have been leveled by the complainant, out of which 23 persons have been declared innocent and the result of investigation has not been challenged by the complainant at any forum. I.O. Present before the Court has frankly conceded that the petitioner has already joined the investigation which is complete qua him. He is previously non- convict and there is no record against him. No beneficial purpose would be served by handing over the body of the petitioner to the police for further investigation. In view of the above backdrop false implication of the petitioner in the instant case on account of malice cannot safely be ruled out.
Reliance is placed on the case titled as "Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafar Ullah and another" (1986 SCM R 1380).
6. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed and the ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2014 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature.