GHULAM RASOOL Versus State
This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant. The core legal questions were whether the applicant had misused the concession of bail, whether the prosecution's case against the applicant was based on probable grounds, and whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of interim bail. The court observed that the applicant had regularly attended trial proceedings and had not misused the concession of bail. Furthermore, the court noted a significant delay in lodging the FIR and found no clear motive attributed to the applicant, rendering the prosecution's case doubtful. Relying on the principle that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial rather than to punish, and that personal liberty is a precious right, the court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that at the bail stage, only a tentative assessment of evidence is permissible, and the benefit of doubt should favor the accused.
- Is the object of bail punitive or preventive in nature?
- Should pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution's case appears doubtful and the accused has not misused the concession of bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage?
- Article 4, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---- The applicant was admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 16.03.2021 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation of said order.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant while reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memo of bail application submitted that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the applicant is regularly attending the trial court as well as this court and not misused the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that there is delay of one month and eight days in lodging the FIR, the entire prosecution story is baseless as no such incident had taken place. He prayed that the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants vide order dated 16.03.2021 may be confirmed.
3. Notice issued to the complainant returned served but he is called absent. Learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh opposed the confirmation of bail but could not controvert the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the record.
5. This is a bail before arrest and applicant was admitted to pre-arrest bail vide order dated 16-3-2021 and today the matter is fixed for confirmation of said order. No complaint of misuse of concession of bail or tampering the record has been pointed out. The applicant is regularly appearing in the case before this court as well as trial court, which fact is clear from the record. There is no motive against applicant/accused for commission of offence. Prima facie, case against applicant appears to be doubtful benefit of which shall go to the applicant. In the case reported as Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"So whenever reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of an accused person in the crime or about the truth/probability of the prosecution case and the evidence proposed to be produced in support of the charge, the accused should not be deprived of benefit of bail. In such a situation, it would be better to keep an accused person on bail than in the jail, during the trial. Freedom of an individual is a precious right. Personal liberty granted by a Court of competent jurisdiction should not be snatched away from accused unless it becomes necessary to deprive him of his liberty under the law. Where story of prosecution does not appear to be probable, bail may be granted so that further inquiry may be made into guilt of the accused".
6. It is not out of context to mention here that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive and therefore, deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it may be required to ensure the presence of accused during trial. The punishment begins after conviction and not before it, as in criminal justice system every man is deemed to be innocent until duly found guilty. It needs not to re-emphasize that the purpose of putting the un-convicted persons in custody is nothing but to secure their attendance at the trial. Even otherwise, life and liberty of a citizen is very precious and guaranteed by Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in PLD 1989 SC 585.
7. At bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case are not permitted and only tentative assessment is to be made, however, where accused satisfies the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of such offence, then the Court must release him on bail. Wisdom is sought from the case titled Yar Muhammad v. The State and another reported in 2004 YLR 2230. On tentative assessment of the case, the case of the applicant is one of further inquiry.
8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim, pre-arrest bail granted to applicant vide order dated 16.03.2021 is confirmed on same terms and conditions. The instant criminal bail application stands disposed of.
SA/G-15/Sindh Bail confirmed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Inayatullah & others vs The State 2024 SHC 1116
- Syed Qurban Ali Shah and others vs The State 2024 SHC 438, 2025 YLR 246
- Syed Qurban Ali Shah Versus State 2025 YLR 246
- Sikandar Ali Versus State 2025 YLR 1959