Muhammad Arif and 2 others vs State and another
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 339 dated 05.07.2020 registered under Sections 452, 447, 354, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Satrah, District Sialkot, concerning allegations of house trespass, beating inmates, outraging modesty, and forcible possession. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the civil disputes pending between the parties, an unexplained eight-day delay in lodging the FIR, and conflicting claims of possession. The Lahore High Court held that since both parties claimed possession of the disputed property, civil suits were already pending adjudication, the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight days, and the petitioners had joined the investigation, no useful purpose would be served by taking them into custody. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that where possession is disputed and civil litigation regarding the property is pending between the parties alongside an unexplained delay in the FIR, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and civil suits regarding the disputed property are already pending between the parties?
- Does joining the investigation by the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in property-related criminal cases?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Arif, Ijaz Ahmad and Husnai n petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 339 dated 05.07.2020. registered at Police Station Satrah District Sialkot for the offences under Sections 452, 447, 354, 148, 149, PPC.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. FIR was registered on the complaint made by Mst. Salma Bibi, who alleged that petitioners along with thirteen co-accused named in FIR and five unknown persons trespassed into her house, beaten the inmates, outraged modesty of complainant and others women and forcibly possessed over the house Stance of learned counsel for petitioners is that the house in question was purchased by petitioners from complainant's father and they were already in possession thereof. Admittedly , Muhammd Iqbal co-accused has instituted a suit for declaration or in alternate for specific performance of contract against Ghulam Haider , father of the complainant qua disputed house. A suit for declaration qua the house in question has also been filed by complainant against her father and others. Both the suits are pending adjudication. FIR was registered after eight days of the alleged occurrence. Such delay has not been explained in the FIR. Both the parties claim complainant against her father and others. Both the suits are pending adjudication. FIR was registered after eight days of the alleged occurrence. Such delay has not been explained in the FIR. Both the parties claim their possession on the disputed land. In such backdrop, actual facts of the case can be surfaced after recording evidence at trial. Petitioners have already joined investigation. No useful purpose would be served by handing over petitioners, custody to police at this stage. Therefore, petition in hand is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to each of the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.