BASHARAT ALI and another vs THE STATE
This was a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Basharat Ali and Sabir Ali, facing charges under sections 324, 506, 353, 186, 285, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged assault on a bank official during a recovery attempt. The core question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the evidentiary status of the FIR. The court dismissed the bail application for Basharat Ali, noting he was specifically named in the FIR and assigned a serious role in the violent occurrence, which was corroborated by medical evidence. Conversely, the court confirmed the bail for Sabir Ali, finding his case distinguishable because he was neither named in the FIR nor provided with identifying descriptions. The court applied the principle that where an accused is not named in the FIR and lacks identification data, their case falls within the ambit of 'further inquiry,' justifying the grant of bail, whereas specific naming and role assignment in a corroborated FIR precludes pre-arrest relief.
- Does the failure to name an accused in the FIR or provide identifying features entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused specifically named in the FIR with a serious role assigned entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 285, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioners are involved in Crime Report No, 83 of 2000, under section 324/506/353/186/285/34, P.P.C., which stood registered against them at Police Station, Saddar, Arifwala on 14-2-2000 at the instance of Manzoor Ahmed, Manager, A.D.B.P., Arifwala Branch.
2. Examination of facts and circumstances contemplated in the first information report shows that the complainant, who happens to be Manager of A.D.B.P., Arifwala Branch along with Ijaz Ahmed, Naib-Tehsildar, Mehr Irshad Ahmed, M.C.O., Noor Jamal, Patwari and Salamat Ali, Driver set out in the official vehicle bearing registered No,2083/I.D..G. For effecting recovery of an amount of Rs,15,81,56 from Basharat Ali, petitioner. They had hardly reached within the revenue estate of Chak No,155/EB, when they found Basharat Ali and another coming from the opposite direction in a Suzuki Jeep. The complainant and his companions alighted from their vehicle and signaled Basharat Ali to stop. Basharat Ali did his best to run over the complainant and others by his jeep but they managed to escape. Thereafter, he left for his Chak. They were followed by the complainant and his companions. No sooner did they reach near the house of Basharat Ali, than Basharat Ali armed with a rifle and his son (name not given) armed with a pistol along with wo unknown persons carrying Sotas arrived there and started hurling filthy abuses to them. They also extended threats to them that if they did not go back, they would be killed. The complainant disclosed the purpose of his coming to him. They all launched a criminal assault upon the complainant. They inflicted injuries on his person with their respective weapons from the butt ends.
They also indulged into firing at the complainant, who laid down on the ground and, as such, was in a position to save his life. The accused armed with Sotas also inflicted injuries upon the complainant. The witnesses beseeched the accused, who went away. Thus, in this manner the present occurrence culminated. Wrist-watch of the complainant was also lost somewhere during the occurrence. The petitioner had preferred an application for the grant of bail before arrest before a learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Arifwala, who by virtue of his order, dated 25-3-2000 declined relief to them on the basis of multifarious reasons embodied in the order itself and petitioners slipped away from the Court. Through this application they have approached this Court to seek their pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the injury attributed to the Basharat petitioner is not available in the medico-legal report and that the case was false. He next argued that name of Sabir Ali has not been mentioned in the first information report and description of his features was also not furnished by the complainant or the witnesses. He next argued that a large number of persons exculpating the petitioners and testifying to their false involvement in the case appeared before the Investigating Officer, whose statements were recorded.
4. Conversely, learned State Counsel vehemently argued that the complainant had no evil motive with him to implicate the petitioner and his son falsely in this case. In addition to this the petitioners were responsible for the commission of crime imputed to them.
5. I have heard respective arguments of both the sides and perused the record. Admittedly, the complainant was examined on the day of occurrence and the Medical Officer observed as many as six injuries on his person, which depict factum of violence on their part. They are also alleged to have fired at the complainant, who escaped unhurt. Admittedly neither the name nor the necessary data for identification of Sabir Ali, petitioner, was furnished by the complainant and the witnesses in the first information report even thereafter when examined under section 161, Cr.P.C.
This fact is confirmed by the learned State Counsel and the Investigating Officer. As such case of Sabir Ali is distinguishable from that of Basharat Ali, who is specifically named in the first information report and has been assigned a serious role in the occurrence. The case of Sabir Ali falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
6. In this view of the matter, interim anticipatory bail, already allowed to him is confirmed.
7. As regards Basharat Ali, he is not entitled to the grant of extraordinary relief of bail before arrest.
Accordingly, this application to his extent is dismissed.