FAZAL KARIM vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Fazal Karim, who was accused alongside three others of causing injuries with hockey sticks to a prosecution witness. A criminal case was registered against the accused persons under sections 326, 325, 149, and 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. While the petitioner's co-accused had been arrested, the petitioner remained at large and had previously been denied pre-arrest bail by the Lahore High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the circumstances of the case did not warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that the petitioner could seek bail after arrest if so advised. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy not to be granted as a matter of course, particularly where the petitioner has not yet submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by surrendering to arrest.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate for an accused who has not yet been apprehended?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail before arrest if the High Court has already refused the same relief?
- Does the failure to surrender to arrest preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 326, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 325, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner Fazal Karim is accused, alongwith three others, to have caused injuries with hockey sticks to Muhammad Latif, P.W. And a case under section 326/325/149/148, P.P.C. Has been registered against the aforesaid four persons and to others, who caused injuries to Mst. Seems, another P.W.
2. While the petitioner's co-accused have been arrested the petitioner has not yet been apprehended. He sought bail before arrest from the Lahore High Court but this was refused by the learned Chief Justice of the said Court vide his order dated 29-2-1984. He has now moved this Court for the same relief.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are inclined to agree with the view of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court that this is not a fit case for bail before arrest and the petitioner may, if so advised, move for bail after arrest.
4. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby.