Muhammad Iqbal Jahan vs The State, etc
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Iqbal Jahan, in relation to FIR No. 853/24, involving offences under Sections 324, 337-D, and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injuries to two individuals on vital parts of their bodies. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail. The court noted that the specific role attributed to the petitioner was corroborated by medical evidence and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the recovery of the crime weapon remained outstanding. The court reaffirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy intended to protect the innocent from abuse of process, not a right in run-of-the-mill cases where prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime and no clear malafide is demonstrated.
- Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused against whom there is prima facie evidence of causing firearm injuries on vital parts of the body?
- Does the lack of recovery of a crime weapon constitute a valid ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
- What is the primary requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail in cases where the accused is nominated in the FIR?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Asif, J. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner/accused (Muhammad Iqbal Jahan) seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.853/24, dated 14.10.2024, offences under Section 324/34 PPC, registered with Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad. Sections 337- D/337-F(iii) PPC were added vide Zimni No.5, dated 04.11.2024.
2. The facts of the case are elaborately mentioned in the bail petition and FIR, the same need not be reproduced.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention to humiliate him at the hands of law enforcement agencies; that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of the instant FIR, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant argued that the earlier pre-arrest bail petition of the petitioner was turned down by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, West-Islamabad; that Medico-Legal Certificate ('MLC') supports the version of the complainant; that recovery of the crime weapon is yet to be affected, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR with the specific role of causing firearm injuries to Riaz and Asfandyar (complainant's brother and cousin) on their vital parts, such injuries are duly corroborated with the Medico Legal Certificate and the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The crime weapon through which severe injuries were caused is yet to be recovered.
7. The remedy of extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail is meant to save the innocent from false implication, rigours of trial and humiliation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Gulshan Ali Solangi and others v. The State through P.G. Sindh" (2020 SCMR 249) has graciously held that "grant of pre-arrest bail is a remedy routed into equity; at a cost to hamper the investigation, this judicial protection is extended, solely to save the innocent from the horrors of abuse of the process of law with a view to protect his dignity and honour. It cannot be granted in every run-of-the-mill criminal case, particularly to the accused confronted prima facie charges structured upon material/evidence, warranting custody, that too, based on positions/pleas verification whereof, is consequent upon the recording of evidence."
8. At the bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be considered, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted by law. Nothing has been brought on the record to show any ill-will or malafide on the part of the complainant or Police, which is the basic requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Hence, circumstances warrant to refrain from extending the benefit of extraordinary relief. My view is strengthened by the case law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (2019 SCMR 1129).
9. The cumulative effect of the above discussion/ findings is that, while evaluating all available material tentatively, this Court has concluded that a specific and the exact role is attributed to the petitioner for causing firearm injuries on the person of injured Riaz and Asfandyar (complainant's brother and cousin) on their vital parts i.e. on neck and abdomen. The ocular evidence finds support with the medical evidence. Sufficient material is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence.
10. Accordingly, given the above, the petitioner failed to make out any prima facie case for the grant of pre-arrest bail; as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any concession. The instant petition stands dismissed, and the interim bail already granted to him vide order dated 11.03.2025 is hereby recalled.
11. Observations made in this order are tentative in nature, which shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial court, where the case be decided on its own merits.