Ch. AMEER MUHAMMAD KHAN vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the High Court's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was charged alongside others under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 448, and 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, alleged to have fired a shot at a prosecution witness, sought bail on the grounds of false implication to hinder his role in defending co-accused family members and an alibi supported by an affidavit. The High Court declined the relief, deeming it premature to assess defense pleas when the petitioner was specifically named in the First Information Report with an attributed role in the assault. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the petitioner's specific involvement in the assault precluded bail. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that an application for pre-arrest bail is legally misconceived once warrants for the arrest of the accused have already been issued. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to surrender to the court.
- Is an application for pre-arrest bail maintainable once warrants for the arrest of the accused have already been issued?
- Should a court assess defense pleas regarding false implication at the pre-arrest bail stage when the accused is specifically named in the First Information Report?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 448, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner who is charged along with others under- sections, 302/307, 148/149 and 448/382, P. P. C. Has been refused bail before arrest by the High Court. The petitioner was allegedly armed with a gun and fired a shot which hit Fateh Muhammad, .P. W. It was urged in the High Court that he was falsely implicated to disable him from prosecuting the defence on behalf of his son and brother who are co-accused in the case. It was further claimed that the petitioner was in Pindigheb at the time of the incident. An affidavit by one Sardar Ali, Member, District Council, Campbellpur, was filed in support of the averment.
2. The learned fudge in 'the High Court thought it premature to make an assessment of the pleas raised in defence. The petitioner was charged the F. I. R., and attributed a specific part in the assault. No ground for enlarging him on bail was, therefore, made out.
3. We concur in the view adopted by the learned Judge and would add that as warrants for the arrest of the petitioner having been already issued the application for bail before arrest was manifestly misconceived. The petitioner has surrendered himself in Court.
4. The petition for leave to appeal dismissed.