MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar alias Nawaz, in connection with F.I.R. No. 626 dated 16.8.2014, registered under Sections 452, 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances surrounding the F.I.R. The Court observed a five-day delay in lodging the F.I.R. despite the police station's proximity, and noted existing litigation between the parties, suggesting potential ulterior motives. Furthermore, the Court questioned the complainant's credibility, noting he claimed absence during the incident yet provided a detailed eyewitness account without disclosing his source. The Court also found the allegation of stripping the victim in the presence of womenfolk inherently improbable. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry, a ground applicable even at the pre-arrest bail stage. The petition was accepted, and the interim pre-arrest bail was confirmed, establishing that the principle of 'further inquiry' is a valid consideration for granting pre-arrest bail when prosecution allegations appear doubtful or motivated.
- Can the ground of further inquiry be considered at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- Does a significant delay in lodging an F.I.R. provide grounds for granting bail?
- Can the existence of prior civil litigation between parties suggest an ulterior motive for a criminal complaint?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Abdul Ghaffar alias Nawaz, petitioner seeks pre arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 626 dated 16.8.2014 registered under Sections 452/337F(i)/337-L(2)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Model Town..
Burewala, Distt. Vehari.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith other co-accused armed with hockey's and sotas forcibly entered into house of the complainant, belaboured his mother and brother, made his brother naked and then dragged him in the street.
3. Arguments pro and contra have been heard and record perused.
4. It is an admitted fact that Police Station is situated at a distance of one furlong from the alleged place of occurrence but there is delay of five days in lodging the F.I.R. It is also an admitted fact that both the parties are involved in litigation. The complainant is brother-in-law (sister's husband) of the petitioner against whom sister of the petitioner filed a suit for maintenance which was decreed and appeal in this regard is pending. Thus possibility of ulterior motive on the part of the complainant party to falsely involve the petitioner in this case cannot be ruled out. It was claimed by the complainant in the F.I.R. That he was not present at the home at the time of occurrence but he amazingly narrated the whole story in the F.I.R. As if he was eyewitness of the occurrence and that too without disclosing his source of information. It is hardly believable that the petitioner party in presence of their own women folk/co-accused would make brother of the complainant naked to drag him in street. All these circumstances when combined together, make out a case of the petitioner that of further inquiry entitling him to the grant of bail. It has been settled by now that ground of further inquiry can be taken into consideration even at pre-arrest bail stage.
Consequently, this petition is accepted and interim pre-arrest bail of the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the, sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.