Noor Ali vs The State
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicants, who were accused of forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the complainant and a witness with various weapons, allegedly with the intent to commit murder. The applicants, having been refused pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, sought relief from the High Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail, confirming the interim bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the significant delay of 41 days in lodging the FIR, the police investigation finding several applicants innocent, and the existence of a prior dispute over landed property between the parties. The Court emphasized that such factors, particularly the unexplained delay and the findings of innocence by the investigating agency, warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail pending trial.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can the findings of innocence by the police during investigation be a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there is a pre-existing dispute over landed property between the parties?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah, J. It is alleged that the applicants after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused lathi, hatche t and Saria blows to complainant Ahmed Nawaz and PW Imdad Ali with intention to commit their murder and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment and insulting complainant party , for that the present case was registered against them.
2. The applicants on having been refused pre arrest bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hala has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application u/s 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; the FIR has been lodged with delay of about [41] days and applicants Noor Ali, Iqbal, Mumtaz Ali and Khan Muhammad on investigation have been found to be innocent by the police. By contending so, he sought for pre-arrest bail for the applicants on point of further enquiry and malafide. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Akhtar Hussain alias Akhtar Ali vs The State (2007 YLR 853) and Zaheer Ahmed Khan vs The State ( 2003 SCMR 919 )
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 about [41] days; such delay could not be overlooked. On investigation applicants Noor Ali, Iqbal, Mumtaz Ali and Khan Muhammad have been found to be innocent by the police. The parties are said to be dispu ted 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 applicants 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 .