MUSHT AQ AHMAD vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail despite the police investigation eventually implicating them, after two prior investigations had found them innocent. The Court held that the interim bail should be confirmed. The decision was based on the fact that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the tracking of the petitioners by privately trained dogs deployed eleven days after the incident, which the Court found unreliable given that official police or army dogs are typically ineffective after 33 hours. Furthermore, the petitioners had no prior criminal record and were respected members of the community. The Court established the principle that where the evidence connecting an accused to an offense is tenuous or based on unreliable methods, and where previous investigations have exonerated the accused, the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail should be exercised in favor of the accused to prevent harassment.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when previous police investigations have found the accused innocent?
- Is evidence derived from privately trained tracking dogs deployed eleven days after an incident sufficient to justify the denial of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the lack of prior criminal record influence the court's discretion in granting pre-arrest bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' The petitioner had been admitted to interim bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,162 of 1998 registered with P.S. Barana, District Jhang under sections 457, 380, P.P.C. Ordinarily, no accused person is admitted to bail, especially in a case of theft because in that case recovery of alleged property is rendered practically impossible but in the present case, facts and circumstances are such that I am inclined to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. The investigation was initially conducted by the local police and they found the petitioners to be innocent, thereafter, the ASP conducted the investigation. He too found the petitioners to be innocent. Lastly the Range Crimes, Jhang took up the investigation and they found the petitioners to be involved in the case. I have inquired from the police officer as to what evidence or on the basis of what circumstances; suspicion has been laid on the petitioner. According to him the complainant procured the services of a retired army officer who according to him has trained some dogs to make the search of suspected persons. According to those dogs they chased the track and stopped in the Haveli of the petitioners. Those dogs were deployed after eleven days of the registration of the case. On a query as to why the police dogs or army dogs could not be deployed, it was answered that their dogs cannot detect the suspect after the expiry of 33 hours. None of the petitioner had been required in any criminal case prior to the present one. The petitioner No,1 is a retired army personnel and the other two petitioners are petty landlords of the locality. As no tangible evidence or any incriminating circumstance justifying the cancellation of bail exist, I therefore, confirm the interim bail already allowed to the petitioners. However, they will furnish fresh bail bonds iri the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of the area. The petitioners will associate with the investigation, if they so required and in case some other evidence or circumstances all available against the petitioner the State or the complainant will be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail.
2. Pre-arrest .