MUHAMAMD SALEEM Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Saleem, in relation to a criminal case registered under sections 337F(i), 337F(iii), 337, 40, and 279 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the incident, which involved a collision between two carts. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, confirming the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the finding that the FIR was registered with an inordinate four-day delay, that the incident appeared to be a case of accident simpliciter rather than an intentional act, and that the possibility of a false case arising from mala fides and existing ill-will between the parties could not be ruled out. The Court emphasized that the merits of the case must be considered in pre-arrest bail applications, establishing that where a case appears to be one of further inquiry, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Does an inordinate delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a pre-arrest bail application?
- Can the merits of a case be considered when deciding a petition for pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate where the incident appears to be an accident simpliciter rather than an intentional criminal act?
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 40, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 279, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Saleem petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 198, dated 11-4-,2007 registered at Police Station Chuchak District Okara .in respect of offences under sections 337F(i)/337F(iii)/ 337/40/279, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Mustafa complainant is that he along with his father was going to his home on a cart. When they reached at the paved road near Thatha Jindhran Wala the petitioner who was also driving a cart struck his cart with that of the complainant party due to which the complainant as well as his father were run over the cart. In said collision Abdul Karim father of the petitioner received injuries. Hence the F.I.R.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. reveals that it was simpliciter a case of accident during which the injured P.W. had received a simple injuries. He adds that the petitioner has been involved in this case due to the mala fide of the police as well as the complainant. He maintains that one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Akram had refused to support the prosecution. Rather he had sworn an affidavit to vouch the innocence of the petitioner. On the basis of the said submissions, learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, it has been straightaway noticed that the F.I.R. in this case was got registered with an inordinate delay of four days which by itself makes the case of petitioner as that of further inquiry. It has been further observed that the petitioner had not used any conventional weapon to cause injuries to the injured P.W. Admittedly the injured P.W. fell down from his cart after being hit by the cart driven by the petitioner. According to the Police Officer present in Court during the investigation it was found that the petitioner while driving his cart had tried to overtake the cart of the complainant at a narrow path. The facts narrated in the F.I.R. as well as the result of the investigation show that possibility cannot be ruled out that it was a case of an accident simpliciter. Considering the background of ill-will between the parties the question of registration of false case due to the mala fides of the complainant party cannot be ruled out straightaway. A case of further inquiry has been made out in favour of the petitioner. Law of pre-arrest bail is not a static law and while deciding the pre-arrest bail application merits of the case cannot be ignored. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the cases of Meeran Bux v. The State and another PLD 1989 SC 347, Muhammad Ismail v. Ghous Bux and another 1990 PCr.LJ 2013 and Aftab Gul v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1509.
6. For all the reasons stated above, this application is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16-5-2007 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-443/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.