HUSSAIN BUX alias BABU CHACHAR Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from two criminal bail applications involving allegations of house trespass with intent to commit Zina-bil-Jabr under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to bail where the allegations in the First Information Report lack specific overt acts of substantive criminal offences and fall outside the prohibitory clause. The court held that since the applicability of the penal provisions remains uncertain, no substantive criminal acts are attributed, and the arrest appears mala fide with ulterior motives, the applicants are entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused should not be kept incarcerated without substantive allegations of criminal acts, and bail ought to be granted when the tentative assessment of the record reveals that the case falls outside the prohibitory clause and requires further inquiry.
- Whether bail should be granted when no overt act of a substantive criminal offence is attributed to the accused in the First Information Report?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars when the applicability of specific penal provisions remains uncertain and subject to further inquiry?
- Does the registration of a First Information Report for ulterior motives render the arrest mala fide for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 449, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 451, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. I would like to decide Cr.B.A. o.672 of 2003 and Cr.B.A. No.673 of 2003 by a single order as they arise out of the same bail order.
2. The allegations are that on the night of 14/15‑11‑2003 accused Husain Bux and Rahim Bux armed with guns whereas accused Dildar and Karim Bux armed with pistols and hatchet respectively trespassed into the house of complainant in order to commit Zina‑bil‑Jabr with Mst. Rehsam daughter of complainant. The complainant and other house inmates raised cries which attracted the neighbours and thereafter the culprits filed from the scene of offence. After registration of F.I.R. police made efforts to apprehend the accused, who applied for pre‑arrest bail before the Court of Sessions Judge, Dadu. The said bail application was dismissed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu vide order, dated 4‑12‑2003.
3. I have heard Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, earned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Rasheed. Ahmed Qureshi learned A.A.‑G. The latter has opposed the bail plea of accused.
4. The record shows.that four persons trespassed into the house of complainant. The allegations contained in the F.I.R. are based on hypothesis and conjectures. No overt act has been attributed to applicants in the F.I.R. They simply trespassed in the house and were standing near the cot of Mst. Reshman. Neither the accused had outraged the modesty of the girl nor any other allegation is levelled against them that they tried to commit any other criminal offence. The applicability of section 449, P.P.C. is still in mystery. It is yet to be established by the prosecution that the offence is falling ‑under section 449 or 451 and 452, P.P.C. Sections 451 and 452, P.P.C. are not covered by prohibitory clause. Such type of allegations can easily be levelled in the F.I.R. against any of the person. For these reasons it would not be proper to keep the persons behind the bars without any substantive allegations of criminal act against them. Apparently, it appears that registration of F.I.R. is for some ulterior motives. For these reasons, the arrest of the applicants shall be mala fide. Hence the interim bail granted earlier to accused) Hussain Bux and Rahim Bux is confirmed on the same terms and conditions whereas accused Dildar and Karim Bux are to be released on bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. H.B.T./H‑14/K Interim pre‑arrest bail confirmed.
Cited by 1 case
- SHOUKAT alias SHAFQATULLAH vs THE STATE 2012 PLD Sindh 174