Kamran Attaullah and another vs The State
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of pre-arrest bail by the High Court of Sindh to the petitioners, who are officers of the Federal Investigation Agency. The petitioners were accused of accepting a bribe of 24 million rupees from a co-accused involved in a financial scam to defraud the Utility Stores Corporation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail given the incriminating evidence, including forensic data and computer records, linking them to the alleged offense. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave, holding that the petitioners failed to establish a case for pre-arrest bail. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process, which includes arrest as a necessary step for effective prosecution. The Court laid down the principle that the suspension or diversion of the usual course of law through pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary measure, justified only upon a clear showing of mala fide intent behind the intended arrest, which was absent in this case.
- Can anticipatory bail be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process?
- Is the arrest of an accused a necessary component for the effective and meaningful prosecution of an offense?
- What is the primary justification required to suspend or divert the usual course of law through the grant of pre-arrest bail?
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Declined both by the learned Special Judge Central-I Karachi as well as a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Sindh, petitioners, Deputy and Assistant Directors in the Federal Investigation Agency , respectively , seek leave of the Court for bail in anticipation to their arrest in a case registered with F.I.A./ACC Karachi; they are accused to have received gratification to the tune of rupees 24 million from one Sheikh Muhammad Munawar , arrayed as accused in a financial scam to subtly defraud Utility Stores Corporation to effect a massive sale transaction through a fake ISO certification. During the inquiry , incriminatory statements of various witnesses were forensically confirmed from the computer CDR and ledgers secured from the custody of co- accused Abdul Qadir Memon, a front man in the transaction; it was on the basis of this comprehensive probe that the petitioners braced the impending prosecution.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. A detailed parallel story related by the petitioners notwithstanding, nonetheless, they were admittedly at the helm of affairs to call the shot and thus in a position to rescue the complainant from the troubled situation he was trapped; various pieces of evidence including forensic data, beyond susceptibility of human interference, unmistakably suggest a conduct perfidious to the call of their duty hence, prima facie , cognizable. It is by now well settled that the accused in a criminal case cannot be granted anticipatory bail to subvert or undermine investigative procedure/process that essentially include arrest in order to bring the statutory exercise to its logical end for effective and meaningful prosecution of the offence through collection of informa tion/evidence consequent upon arrest. Mala fide, manifestly intriguing upon the intended arrest, is the only justification to suspend or divert the usual course of law , a step most extraordinary by all means; it is not a case in hand. Petition fails. Leave declined.
Cited by 6 cases
- Abdul Ghaffar Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 282
- Muhammad Abid S/O Muhammad Afzal vs The State 2023 SHC 902
- Rukhsana Bibi vs The State and another 2022 PCRLJ 1806
- Ghulam Qamar vs The State & another 2022 IHC 90
- Muhammad Irfan vs Chairman NAB and Others 2021 SHC 506
- Agha Siraj Khan Durrani and others vs National Accountability Bureau 2022 P Cr. L J 722