Muhammad Rizwan Kalhoro & another vs The State
This matter arises from a pre-arrest bail application filed by jail officials seeking pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction after they allegedly failed to release the complainant's son despite bail orders, demanding bribes instead. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of malafide, delayed FIR registration, and police recommendation for disposal under A-Class. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail as the FIR was delayed by one month, the police recommended disposing of the case under A-Class, and the State recorded no objection. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where there is unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, a police recommendation for disposal under A-Class, and no objection from the State, indicating potential malafide.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR is a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does a police recommendation to dispose of a case under A-Class support the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when the State records no objection to its grant?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J: - It is alleged by the complainant that his son Kashif Ali was taken away by police constable Rafique and he then was involved in two separate cases wherein he was admitted to bail by the Courts having jurisdiction, such release orders were sent to Central Prison at Hyderabad for compliance. The applicants being jail officials despite acceptance of bribe did not release his son Kashif Ali consequently he lodged FIR of the instant case against the applicants and others for abduction of his son Kashif Ali.
2. The applicants sought for pre arrest bail by making such application, it was declined to them by learned 3 Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. They now have sought for the same, from this Court, by way of instant application under Section 498 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant; the son of the complainant was a hardened criminal of the area and he after his release has himself gone missing to create pressure against the police; the FIR of the incident has been lodged by the complainant with delay of one month and very case on investigation has been recommended by the police to be disposed of under A-Class. By contending so he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on the point of malafide.
4. Learned A.P.G for the State who is assisted by the complainant has recorded no objection to grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of incident has been lodged with delay of one month; such delay could not be overlooked. The very case on investigation has been recommended by the police to be disposed of under A-Class. Learned A.P.G for the State at the instance of the complainant has recorded no objection to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the applicants.
In these circumstances, the applicants are found entitled to be admitted to pre-arrest bail on point of malafide.rd
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
8. The instant application is disposed of in above terms.