QAIM DIN vs MUHAMMAD SULEMAN and 2 others
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by a complainant against an order of the High Court granting pre-arrest bail to respondents in a murder case. The respondents had previously been discharged by the police during the investigation, but were subsequently summoned by the trial court following a direct complaint. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail, reasoning that the trial court had issued non-bailable warrants without adequately considering the police findings of innocence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, specifically focusing on whether the High Court correctly evaluated the police record, whether police findings are superseded by trial court findings under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether it was legally appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail without the accused first surrendering to the trial court or establishing mala fide intent. Upon the petitioner's concession, the Court limited the scope of the appeal to one respondent, Suleman, who accepted notice, and directed that the case be heard at an early date.
- Whether the findings of the police are superseded by the findings of the trial court for the purposes of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it lawful and proper to allow pre-arrest bail to an accused without them having surrendered before the trial court and having made an application for bail in the first instance before that court?
- Must the condition of arrest being mala fide be satisfied for the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a murder case, against the grant of bail before arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2, by the High Court.
2. During the investigation of the case the police having found the said respondents as innocent, they were got discharged. A direct complaint having been filed from the petitioner's side the said accused were summoned and were directed to appear in pursuance of non-bailable warrants issued against them. Notwithstanding the same the High Court allowed pre-arrest bail, mainly, on the ground that the learned trial Judge issued non-bailable warrants without properly examining the police record/findings which go in favour of the said respondents.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case, inter alia, to examine one, whether, the High Court itself properly examined the record and findings by the police; whether, the findings by the police would not be superseded by the findings of the trial Court for the purposes of subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the other similar purposes; whether, in any case it was lawful and proper to allow pre-arrest bail to the respondents without they having surrendered before the trial Court and having made application for bail in the first instance before that Court, and whether, the condition of arrest being mala fide was satisfied.
4. ' After the announcement of the order but before its dictation the learned counsel pointed out that Suleman respondent remained present in Court during the hearing of the petition. He also pointed out that the petitioner would be satisfied if leave to appeal is granted against said Suleman only.
5. Suleman accordingly was asked; whether, he would accept notice. He answered in the affirmative.
6. Accordingly on the concession made from the petitioner's side by his learned counsel, leave to appeal is granted only against Suleman. The case is complete. It shall be heard at an early date.