MUHAMMAD SAFDAR AND Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. The three petitioners, accused alongside others under sections 148, 324, and 325 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contended that their first information report was prior in time to a counter-report and that a right of private defence had accrued. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail ought to be granted in a case involving a sudden cross-version incident where no ulteiror motive or extraordinary feature justifying pre-arrest relief is demonstrated. The Supreme Court held that pre-arrest bail is not the rule in cognizable offences and is granted only when arrest is apprehended due to ulterior motives or exceptional circumstances. Finding no such features, the petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy requiring proof of mala fides or peculiar justifying features, and normal criminal process requiring post-arrest bail should otherwise take its course in cross-version affrays.
- Is pre-arrest bail the rule in cognizable offences?
- What are the essential grounds required for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a prior first information report automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail in a cross-version case?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. C, J.-The three petitioners, alongwith three others, are accused of offences failing under sections 148, 324 and 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 149 thereof. Their application for bail before arrest has been dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court by his order dated the 22nd January, 1976. They now seer: special leave to appeal.
2. The incident is said to have taken place at 8 a. m. On 13th December 1975 in the area of village Panjwarian, in the jurisdiction of Police Station Kharian in Gujrat District. F. I. R. No. 201 was registered at the police station by petitioner Muhammad Akhtar at 8.10 a. m. On the 14th of December, 1975; whereas F. I. R. No. 202 was registered at the same police station at 9 a. m. The same day by one Haji Muhammad Asghar, Both the F. I. Rs. Accuse the opposite-party of having initiated the attack and caused injuries to each other.
3. It is contended by Mr. Qureshi Mahmood Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Judge in the High Court has fallen in error to ignoring the fact that the first information report made by petitioner Muhammad Akhtar was prior in time to the counter-report made by Haji Muhammad Akhtar of the opposite party, and that Muhammad Asghar had sustained injuries on account of which right of private defence had accrued to him and to his companions.
4. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, overlook the fact that bail before arrest is not the rule in cognizably; offences, and is to be allowed only when it can be shown that the petitioner apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives on the part of the authorities or other influential persons, or there are some peculiar features of the case which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power by the High Court or the Sessions Court. In the present case, no such features appear to be present. An incident has admittedly taken place between the parties, in which the petitioners are accused of having caused injuries to Muhammad Sadiq of the opposite party. In the normal course of criminal law the petitioners can legitimately ask for bail only after their arrest and not before arrest.
5. On this view of the matter, we see no justification to interfere and accordingly dismiss this petition,