Ghulam Farooq Channa vs Special Judge ACE (CENRAL-I) Karachi and another
The petitioner, a Secretary of a Union Council, sought pre-arrest bail after being accused of fabricating a fake death certificate to assist co-accused individuals in fraudulently acquiring valuable properties. The petitioner argued that the alleged fabrication was reported after a five-year delay, that he was being used as a scapegoat, and that his co-accused had already been granted post-arrest bail. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary judicial intervention designed to protect innocent individuals from the abuse of process and malicious prosecution, rather than a routine substitute for post-arrest bail. The Court ruled that a delay in reporting a crime does not mitigate culpability or establish mala fides on the part of the prosecution. Consequently, where there is prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence, pre-arrest bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the release of co-accused on post-arrest bail is irrelevant to the determination of pre-arrest bail.
- What are the primary judicial grounds and purposes for granting pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
- Does a delay in reporting a cognizable offence mitigate culpability or constitute prima facie evidence of prosecution mala fides for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the subsequent release of co-accused on post-arrest bail serve as a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail to a principal accused?
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Avoiding arrest since 28.8.2019,.in the wake of dismissals, Ghulam Farooq Channa, Secretary Union Council Jamshed Town, Karachi seeks bail in anticipation thereto; he is accused of having fabricated a fake death certificate of one Naseem Begum Chotani, on the basis whereof, his co-accused attempted to hoodwink judicial process to grab valuable properties vesting in the lady. Upon disclosure, the scam was reported to the Anti-Corruption Authorities and pursuant to an inquiry; the petitioner has been arrayed as accused alongside the accomplices.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that alleged fabrication was reported after five years and in fact was committed by the officials at the higher rung and that the petitioner was being hounded as a scapegoat to save the real culprits; it is argued that the co-accu sed have since been enlarged on post arrest bail and, thus, petitioner's remission into custody is not likely to serve any useful purpose, relative to investigation.
3. Heard.
4. Grant of bail to an accused required in a cognizable and non-bail offence prior to his arrest is an extraordinary judicial intervention in an ongoing or imminent investigative process. It clogs the very mechanics of State authority to investigate and prosecute violations of law designated as crimes. To prevent arrest of an accused where it is so required by law is a measure with far reaching consequences that may include loss or disappearance of evidence.
The Statute does not contemplate such a remedy and it was judicially advented way back in the year 1949 in the case of Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown (PLD 1949 Lahore 21) with purposes sacrosanct and noble, essentially to provide judicial refuge to the innocent and the vulnerable from the rigors of abuse of process of law; to protect human dignity and honour from the humiliation of arrest intended for designs sinister and oblique. The remedy oriented in equity cannot be invoked in every run of the mill criminal case, prima facie supported by material and evidence, constituting a non-bailable/cognizable offence, warranting arrest, an inherent attribute of the dynamics of Criminal Justice System with a deterrent impact; it is certainly not a substitute for post arrest bail.
The petitioner was at the helm of affairs when the bogus certificate was issued; cognizance on belated disclosure does not mitigate the culpability nor can be equated with mala fide. Release of co-accused on post arrest bails is entirely beside the mark for the reasons stated above. View taken by the learned High Court of Sindh as well as the learned Special Judge (Central-I) Karachi is in accord with the law, being consistently followed by this Court till date. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 10 cases
- Altaf Ahmed vs The State 2025 SHC 254
- Anwar Ali and another vs The State 2024 MLD 1848
- Muhammad Sajid alias Sajo vs The State etc 2021 LHC 7211, 2022 PCRLJ 151, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 737
- Naveed Ahmed vs The State 2023 YLR 1449
- Muhammad Shawaiz Abbasi, etc vs The State, etc 2021 YLR 1342, PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 905, 2021 IHC 56
- Jalal Ahmad @ Papi vs State etc PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1388, PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 59
- Ghulam Farooq Channa vs The State 2022 MLD 768
- ASIMULLAH Versus State 2022 YLRN 74
- AZIZ ABDUL RAHIM KASSAM ALI Versus State 2021 YLRN 81
- State Versus Sher Alam 2026 YLR 1536