Mozammal Abbas vs The State and others
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought pre-arrest bail for the petitioner in a criminal case involving murder charges. The petitioner failed to appear before the Supreme Court on multiple scheduled dates despite the rejection of his pre-arrest bail by the lower courts. The Court took judicial notice of the widespread failure of law enforcement to apprehend accused persons whose pre-arrest bail applications had been dismissed by the High Court and Sessions Courts, noting that hundreds of such individuals remained at large. The Court expressed concern over the apparent laxity or external pressure influencing police performance in executing lawful arrests. Emphasizing that the police must operate independently to maintain law and order and protect the community, the Court directed the Additional Inspector General of Police to ensure the apprehension of all such absconding accused and submit a progress report. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition for non-prosecution due to his persistent absence.
- Does the persistent absence of a petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail warrant dismissal of the petition for non-prosecution?
- What is the constitutional obligation of the police regarding the arrest of accused persons whose pre-arrest bail applications have been rejected by courts?
- Can the Supreme Court take judicial notice of the failure of law enforcement agencies to apprehend accused persons whose bail has been refused?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 343/2019 dated 21.06.2019 under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kotmomin, District Sargodha. The same relief was denied to him by the learned Courts below .
2. This matter was earlier taken up on 28.12.2020 but neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. We took cognizance of the matter that despite refusal of pre-arrest bail by the High Court almost five months ago, the petitioner is still at large and called a report from Additional Inspector General of Police (Investigation) showing the cases involving heinous offences in which despite rejection of pre-arrest bail, the accused persons are still fugitive from la w. The matter was again taken up on 30.12.2020 and again the petitioner did not turn up. On the said date, a report was submitted by the Additional Inspector General (Investigation) showing that out of the total 669 accused whose pre-arrest bail applications had been dismissed by the learned High Court and by the learned Sessions Courts, 401 accused have been arrested whereas 268 are still at large. The matter was ultimately adjourned for today with a direction to the Additional Inspector General to report the progress made for the arrest of such accused persons who have still not been apprehended. The DPO Sargodha was also directed to file report about the progress made in tracing the petitioner . Today also the petitioner is not present. The Additional Inspector General and the DPO Sargodha have submitted a detailed report. The report submitted by the Additional Inspector General (Investigation) shows that out of the total 669 accused, 604 have been arrested and 65 are Still at large.
2. According to the report submitted by the DPO Sargodha, numerous raids were conducted to arrest the petitioner .
3. The DPO has informed us that according to credible information there is likelihood that within couple of hours, the petitioner would be taken into custody . The progress sought by this Court has duly been addressed by the Senior Police Officer, which seems to be reasonable. However , the above data compels us to observe that before this Court took cognizance of the matter , the Police did not take any serious action to complete the process of law by apprehending the accused, whose bail applications had been rejected by the courts of law. It seems there was some unseen pressure on the Police or prima facie it was the laxity on the part of the Police to perform its duty in accordance with law. The job of the Police is to protect the community by fighting and preventing crime, as well as maintaining law and order . It is the Police who strive to keep the community safe by reducing the fear of crime and improving the overall quality of life of the citizens. The Police is supposed to perform its duty independently without taking any external pressure. So far as the arrest of proclaimed offenders, who have not been arrested despite rejection of pre-arrest bail, the Additional Inspector General is directed to complete the process of law and submit a report for our perusal in chambers within one week. The DPO Sargodha is also directed to complete the process of law regarding the petitioner and submit a report within one week for our perusal in chambers.
4. 8(sic.) For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed for non-prosecution