INJUM SAQIB and others vs STATE, etc
This matter concerns petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by several police officers and a private individual accused in F.I.R. No. 135/2019, registered at Police Station City Pindi Bhattian, for offences including intentional omission to apprehend an accused and illegal confinement. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the lack of direct evidence linking them to the alleged escape of an accused person and the absence of material demonstrating their specific involvement. The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence establishing a prima facie nexus between the petitioners and the alleged crime. The Court observed that the petitioners had joined the investigation, nothing was recovered from them, and the then S.H.O. had already been granted post-arrest bail. The Court affirmed that while pre-arrest bail is not granted as a routine, it is appropriate in exceptional circumstances where mala fide is inferable from the facts and sending the accused to jail would serve no purpose. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail for all petitioners.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when the prosecution fails to provide prima facie evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime?
- Is it appropriate to deny pre-arrest bail when the accused has joined the investigation and no recovery is required from them?
- Can mala fide be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 221, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 225, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 344, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 155-C, Police Order 2002
- Section 157, Police Order 2002
ORDER
Through this single order , I intend to decide above mentioned bail petitions arising out of case F.I.R. No. 135/2019 dated 19.04.2019, registered at Police Station City Pindi Bhattian, Hafizabad, for offence under Sections 221, 224, 225, 344, 109, P .P.C. read with Section 155-C, 157, Police Order 2002.
2. The petitioners including Malik Amanat Ali are police officers are charged with offence of intentional omission to apprehend an accused. Allegation of illegal confinement was in addition to that. Allegedly , Malik Amanat Ali also participated in this occurrence as the accused who managed his escape was handed over to him by his co- accused.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that Rai Riasat Ali accused was performing his duty as Incharge Police Post. The narratives of the F.I.R. suggested that S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Pindi Bhattian asked him to bring accused from Police Station Defence, Lahore and accordingly , the said accused was brought back by the petitioner Rai Riasat Ali but neither his arrest was incorporated in the roznamcha nor he was locked in police lockup. The record further divulged that the said accused managed his escape, allegedly in connivance with all the petitioners. Available record does not suggest that the petitioner Rai Riasat Ali was bound to record his arrest or put him in the police lockup.
So far as, Anjum Saqib is concerned, he was then performing as D.S.P . Circle and the only allegation against the said petitioner was that he influenced his subordinate managing escape of the accused, however , no evidence was collected during the investigation showing the mode of exercising his influence or nothing in black and white was available reflecting his direction for the said purpose. Amazingly Malik Amanat Ali, who is neither the police official nor has link with the police department was blamed for handing over the said accused but, once again, the Investigating Agency has not collected any evidence during- the investigation showing his nexus with the above crime. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General pointed out that he was servant of the D.S.P . Circle and was handed over the custody of the said accused but no cogent or solid evidence to substantiate said charge is available on the file. However , the then S.H.O. has been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Illaqa Magistrate as pointed out by the Deputy Prosecutor General after having instructions from the officer present with record. It is difficult for the accused to prove the element of mala fide, at this stage, through positive/solid evidence/material, therefore, the same was to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and that where events or hints to such effect are available, same would validly constitute the element of mala fide. The petitioners have joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from them. The pre-arrest bail cannot be granted by way of routine, however , can be extended in exceptional circumstances. No material is available on the file showing prima facie nexus of the petitioners with this crime, thus, sending them behind the bars would not serve any purpose to the prosecution and this would be colour of ludicrousness if the petitioners are sent to jail for a few days by dismissing the application so as to enable them to come out of jail after a few days on post arrest bail. Mala fide was asserted in the petition and there was no allegation of the misuse of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
4. In view of the above, the bail applications are accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty judge.