GHULAM QADIR Versus State
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Ghulam Qadir, who was implicated in Crime No. 20 of 2005. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence against him. The court observed that the applicant was not apprehended at the scene of the crime and that his involvement was based solely on the disclosure made by a co-accused, Javed Ali. Finding that the prosecution could not controvert the contention that the applicant was implicated due to political rivalry and noting the lack of independent evidence, the court held that the applicant's case called for further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated in a criminal case solely on the basis of a statement by a co-accused and was not apprehended at the spot, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when implicated solely by the statement of a co-accused?
- Does the absence of an accused at the scene of the crime justify further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution fails to controvert allegations of political rivalry?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Applicant Ghulam Qadir is involved in Crime No.20 of 2005 registered against him along with other co-accused persons on 24-6-2005, on the report of S.I.P. Fazal Ali Qureshi.
2. Pre-arrest bail is pressed on the ground that the applicant has been implicated by the police in the case on account of political rivalry and that there is no evidence against the applicant except that his name was disclosed by co-accused namely Javed Ali.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General in the circumstances, has not been able to controvert the contentions, raised on behalf of the applicant to the extent of mentioning the name of present applicant by co-accused.
4. We have considered the submissions and perused the material available on the record.
5. The perusal of F.I.R. itself reveals that the applicant was not apprehended' at the spot. His name was disclosed by one of the co- accused namely Javed Ali. The case of the applicant, therefore, calls for further inquiry. In the circumstances, interim pre-arrest, granted to the applicant vide order, dated 2-11-2005, is confirmed.
H.B.T./G-14/K Bail confirmed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Sardar Bux vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 1227
- ASLAM PERVEZ vs THE STATE 2007 MLD 263