ALI RAZA vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused in FIR No. 422/15 registered under Section 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bhatti Gate, Lahore, for allegedly attempting to take the life of the complainant while armed and committing mischief. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established sufficient grounds to warrant the confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail, particularly regarding allegations of mala fide or false implication. Upon review, the Court observed that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with a distinct role, and prosecution witnesses had implicated him in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted that ten empties were recovered during the spot inspection and that the recovery of the weapon was still pending. Finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police, the Court held that no case for pre-arrest bail was made out and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Does the specific nomination of an accused in an FIR with a distinct role preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the failure to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant a sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail?
- Does the pendency of recovery of a weapon affect the entitlement to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.--- The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No,422/15, dated 11.08.2015, under section 440, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Bhatti Gate, Lahore.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner while armed with Pistol attempted at the life of the complainant and committed mischief.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed:-- i. That the petitioner was specifically nominate in the FIR with specific role of firing at the complainant and committing mischief; ii. That during the spot inspection, the Investigating Officer took into possession ten empties; iii. That the prosecution witnesses implicated the petitioner in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.; iv. That the recovery was yet to be effected; v. That the petitioner failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police for his false involvement in this case; and vi. That the petitioner failed to make out a case for confirmation of his ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this petition which is whereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.