ASHIQ HUSSAIN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of abetment in a murder case. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, was not present at the scene, and that no recovery was to be made from him. Conversely, the State and the complainant opposed the bail, highlighting that co-accused were proclaimed offenders and that the petitioner's conduct was questionable due to his previous withdrawal of a bail application. The core legal question was whether the petitioner satisfied the criteria for pre-arrest bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail because the FIR lacked specific details regarding the date, time, and place of the alleged abetment, and witness statements were recorded with a significant delay of twelve days. Finding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that vague allegations of abetment without supporting particulars warrant further inquiry.
- Does the absence of specific details regarding the date, time, and place of alleged abetment in an FIR entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution's witness statements are recorded with a significant delay?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J .---Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this bail before arrest petition, contends that the petitioner is accused of abetment only, he has falsely been implicated, was not present at the spot, nothing has to be recovered from him, no useful purpose shall be served by sending him behind the bars and it is a fit case for bail before arrest. He has placed reliance on 1997 SCMR 850, 1997 PLR 390 and 2002 SCMR 1299.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by complainant's learned counsel submits that four co-accused of the petitioner, who had fired at the deceased, are still at large, and are Proclaimed Offenders, those co-accused are also involved in other murder cases, conduct of the petitioner is not above-board because he was allowed interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the date of hearing he did not appear, his counsel withdrew the bail petition, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in this case, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., no mala fide or ulterior motive is alleged against the complainant and the petitioner is not entitled to the pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard. As far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it is correct that his name is mentioned in the F.I.R. but neither date, time or place of abetment has been mentioned in the F.I.R. nor names of the witnesses of abetment were mentioned in it. Moreso, the occurrence in question had taken place on 4th June, 2006 while the statements of the witnesses of abetment were recorded by the police after 12 days of the occurrence. He was not present at the spot, is accused of abetment only, nothing has to be recovered from him and no useful purpose shall be served from by sending him behind the bars. His case is fully covered by subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. and the case to his extent is one of further inquiry. In the aforereferred circumstances, the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order of this Court dated 13-7-2006 is hereby confirmed.
H.B.T./A-38/L Bail confirmed.