HAFIZ GHULAM HAIDER vs STATE and another
This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 354 and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of outraging modesty and extortion. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the FIR. The Court observed an inordinate eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, which it deemed fatal to the prosecution's case. Furthermore, it noted a contradiction between the FIR, which claimed no weapon was used, and the medical report, which alleged the use of a blunt weapon, alongside the complainant's failure to appear for radiological examination. The Court held that the prosecution lacked sufficient incriminating material and that the petitioner's false implication could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, reaffirming the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief intended to protect innocent individuals from victimization, harassment, and humiliation through the abuse of legal processes for ulterior motives.
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- What is the primary objective of granting pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
- Can contradictions between the FIR and medical evidence regarding the use of weapons support a plea for pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
By filing instant petition. under Section 498, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Hafiz Ghulam Haider seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 554/2017, dated 12.9.2017, under Sections 354/379, PPC, registered with the Police Station Khangarh, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case as reported by the complainant are that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner has assaulted the complainant in order to outrage her modesty coupled with extortion from her Rs, 12,000/,
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. There is inordinate delay of almost eight days in lodging of instant FIR, which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Guidance is sought from Nadeem alias Nanha alias Billa Sher v. The State (2010 SCM R 949).
5. As per FIR, no weapon of offence has been used by the petitioner in order to give beat to the .complainant rather in the MLC of the injured/complainant it is written that blunt weapon has been used by the petitioner, which smacks mala fide on the part of the complainant. Moreover, the MLC was conducted after eight days of the occurrence. Besides, the complainant did not appear before the Radiologist in order to strengthen her MLC which shows the false implication of the petitioner in this case.
6. The above facts leads me to draw an inference that prima facie, the prosecution has no sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence and chances of petitioner's false implication with deliberation after consultation cannot be ruled out.
7. It is settled law if accused has a good case for post arrest bail, the plea of the complainant to send him behind the bars for few days by dismissing her application for pre-arrest bail was held to be ludicrous. Case law is cited upon "Muhammad Aslam v. The State" (2000 YLR 1314) and "Nazar Muhammad and 2 others v. The State" (2012 P Cr. L J 430). As per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427), it is held that pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motive. Needless to mention here that object of pre-arrest bail is to protect the innocent persons from harassm ent, humiliation and incarceration at the hands of police.
8. For the above reasons, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.