SAQIB ALI and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by two petitioners, Saqib Ali and Mubashar Ali, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Safdar. The petitioners contended that the case was mala fide, noting that while seven individuals were initially implicated for abetment, they were later found innocent by the police. Furthermore, the defense argued that police investigations suggested the petitioners did not cause the fatal injury, attributing it instead to another individual, Khadim Hussain. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R. and found guilty during the investigation, with the offense falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the considerations for pre-arrest bail differ significantly from those for post-arrest bail. Finding that the petitioners were implicated in a serious offense falling within the prohibitory clause and were found guilty during the investigation, the Court dismissed the bail application.
- Are the considerations for granting pre-arrest bail identical to those for post-arrest bail?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is an application for bail before arrest on behalf of Saqib Ali son of Asghar Ali and Mubashar Ali son of Malik Manzoor accused in case F.I.R. No,133 of 1999 under sections 302/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Chung, Lahore on 2-6-1999 for the murder of Muhammad Safdar.
2. Allegations against the petitioners are that they while armed with fire-arms committed the murder of Muhammad Safdar at the behest of seven (7) nominated accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that there is only one fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased and for one injury seven (7) persons have been involved falsely. Further submits that 7 accused persons of abetment were found innocent by the police and were also granted bail after arrest and even had been discharged. Adds that in three investigations, police came to the conclusion that though the petitioners were present at the spot but they did not cause any injury to the deceased, it was one Khadim Hussain who had caused death of the deceased. Further adds that case F.I.R. No,132 of 1999 was registered against the complainant party for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and the near relatives of Aslam were making hue and cry for arrest of the accused and when they saw Safdar deceased a close relative of accused in case F.I.R. No,132, Khadim Hussain fired a shot which hit the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case against the petitioners is totally false one and with mala fide intention it has been registered by the police at the instance of the complainant party. Learned counsel has relied on PU 1996 SC 280, 1997 PCr.LJ 1074 and 1570.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. With specific roles; they have been found guilty during the investigation by the police and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for parties. Allegation against Saqib Ali, petitioner No,1, is that he alongwith Khadim pulled down the deceased from the car and thereafter Mubashar petitioner No,2 fired a shot which hit on the back of the deceased. According to the post-mortem examination report produced by the S.H.O., injury is present on the back of the deceased with fire-arm.
Consideration for the grant of bail before arrest and bail after arrest are totally different. Petitioners have been found guilty by the police. Offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for grant of pre-arrest bail. Dismissed.