GHULAM MURTAZA vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 168/2018 registered at Police Station Shehar Sultan, District Muzaffargarh, under Sections 419 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of impersonation as a qualified doctor and providing paramedic allopathic services without a valid degree. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of immediate incriminating evidence from the spot. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of recovered medical apparatus, medicines, signage, or statements from patients present at the time of the raid constitutes grounds for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, and that potential malice in the FIR cannot be ruled out. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that where immediate corroborative evidence from the spot is lacking and no recovery is required, a previous non-convict petitioner is entitled to confirmation of bail as further inquiry is attracted.
- Whether the absence of incriminating recoveries from the spot justifies granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does the failure to record statements of witnesses present at the scene attract further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when he is a previous non-convict and no recovery is to be made from him?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 168/2018 dated 16-4- 2018 registered at Police Station Shehar Sultan, District Muzaffargarh, for offences under Sections 419/420, PPC.
2. Briefly, the allegation against the petitioner that he had set up a clinic at Muradpur Nala where he provided paramedic allopathic services to the general public while impersonating as a qualified doctor although he did not hold any valid degree or certificate to practice medicine. On 16-4-2018, the Complainant who is a Deputy District Health Officer, raided the so-called clinic while the Petitioner was at work but he managed to flee.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. According to the prosecution, the Petitioner runs a clinic at Muradpur Nala and was attending his patients when the alleged raid was conducted. However, no reliable evidence is presently available on the record to substantiate the said allegation. He was not arrested from the spot, Neither the sign board of the Petitioner nor any medicine nor any medical apparatus was seized from there.
More importantly, not even the statement of any of the patients who were stated to be present at the clinic at the time of raid was recorded. All these circumstances call for further inquiry to determine guilt of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel that the FIR is actuated with malice may not be unfounded.
5. The Petitioner is a previous non-convict. Nothing is to be recovered from him. As such, no useful purpose would be served if he is sent behind the bars.
6. In view of the above, this application is accepted. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the Petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing, fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,1 00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.