Muhammad Shakeel vs The State
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who was booked in a criminal case registered under Section 365-B/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, whose name was absent from the FIR and who alleged false implication due to prior litigation, was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The court reasoned that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons despite the complainant's familiarity with the applicant, and noted an unexplained two-day delay in filing the FIR. Furthermore, the record lacked evidence regarding the vehicle used or the location of the victim, leading the court to conclude that the case required further inquiry. The court affirmed the principle that in cases requiring further inquiry, bail is a matter of right rather than a concession, and that the purpose of bail is to secure the accused's attendance at trial, not to be punitive.
- Is the absence of an accused's name in an FIR lodged against unknown persons a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does a case requiring further inquiry entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right?
- What is the primary objective of granting bail in the criminal justice system?
- Section 365-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 4, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J. The applicant booked in case Crime No.400/ 2020 registered with Police Station Al-Falah, Karachi under section 365-B/34, P.P.C. approached this Court by filing the captioned application for pre-arrest bail as his earlier bail application of similar nature had been dismissed by the trial court vide order impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel representing the applicant while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest hail, the applicant is regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and has not misused the concession of pre- arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant. He argued that name of the applicant is not appearing in the FIR which has been lodged against unknown persons though the victim/complainant is well aware with the family of applicant. Learned counsel further argued that there were civil/criminal litigations and the instant case has been registered by dragging the applicant only to exert undue pressure on applicant. It is submitted that since the applicant is malafidely involved in this case with ulterior motive, therefore, the question of applicant's guilt would require further enquiry entitling him to the grant of bail. Learned counsel lastly prayed that pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 19th February, 2021 may be confirmed.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the victim has identified the applicant and there is sufficient material available to connect the applicant with the commission of crime, hence he is not entitled for concession of extra ordinarily relief of pre-arrest bail. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not out of context to mention here that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it may be required to ensure the presence of accused during trial. The punishment begins after conviction and not before it, as in criminal justice system every man is deemed to be innocent until duly found guilty. It needs not to re-emphasize that the purpose of putting the un-convicted persons in custody is nothing but to secure their attendance at the trial. Even otherwise, life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as has been observed by the Hon' able Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585.
7. Admittedly, the name of applicant is not appearing in the FIR and the same has been lodged against unknown persons though the victim / complainant knew the applicant and his family. It is an admitted fact that FIR in this case has been lodged with the delay of 02 days' without any explanation. No complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record has been pointed out. The record is silent about the vehicle used for kidnapping and --the place where the victim was kept for about seven days therefore, probability cannot be ruled out that applicant' might have been falsely involved in case. Suffice it to say that on tentative assessment of the case, the case of the applicant is one of further inquiry. It is settled law that in case of further inquiry, bail is to be granted as a matter of right and not by way of any concession or grace.
8. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail as held in the case of Yar Muhammad v. The State and another (2004 YLR 2230).
8. Keeping in view the facts, circumstances of the case the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 19th February, 2021 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The instant Criminal Bail Application stands disposed of.