Allah Dino @ Dino & others vs The State
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of causing injuries to the complainant and his wife and setting their house on fire, following the refusal of their bail plea by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically allegations of false implication due to a land dispute and a significant delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a nine-day delay, which could not be overlooked, and noted that the parties were involved in a dispute over landed property. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that most of the penal sections applied were bailable, except for Section 436 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding that the applicants had joined the trial and that the case was ready for challenge, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to relief. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicants.
- Does a nine-day delay in lodging an FIR constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Are applicants entitled to pre-arrest bail when the majority of penal sections applied are bailable and the parties have a pre-existing land dispute?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicants with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention caused hatchet and lathi blows to complainant Mubeen and his wife Mst. Walhan and then went away by setting his house on fire, for that the present case was registered against them.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi have sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 498 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants being innocent have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its dispute with them over landed property and the FIR has been lodged with delay of nine days. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of further enquiry and malafide.
4. Learned A.P.G. for the State has opposed to grant of pre arrest bail to the applicants by contending that they have actively participated in commission of incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of nine days; such delay could not be overlooked. All the penal sections applied in the FIR are baila ble excepting one u/s 436 PPC. The parties are said to be disputed over landed property . The case has finally been challenged. The applicants have joined the trial. In these circumstances, it is rightly being contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applica nts are entitled to grant of pre- arrest bail.
7. In view of above, the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicants is confirmed on same terms and conditions.
9. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .