AZAM WATTO and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, Azam Watto and others, who facilitated the employment of a minor girl, Rubina, in the house of co-accused Faisal and his wife. The minor subsequently went missing and remained unrecovered, leading to criminal allegations. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to pre-arrest bail in a case involving the disappearance of a minor whose whereabouts remain unknown, and where the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to pre-arrest bail, noting the gravity of the offense, the failure to approach the court promptly after the dismissal of their earlier bail application, and the fact that the minor had not yet been recovered. The court accordingly dismissed the bail petition while issuing directions to the Superintendent of Police, Model Town, Lahore, to supervise the investigation and ensure the apprehension of the absconding co-accused.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when a minor placed in employment through them goes missing and remains unrecovered?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- What is the effect of a delay of several months in approaching the High Court for pre-arrest bail after dismissal by the Sessions Court?
- Section 364-A, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Facts of the case are that complainant Waryyam father of Rubina aged 8/ 9 years got an employment through the present petitioners for the said minor Rubina in the house of Begum Faisal resident 273/L Model Town, later on the said minor Rubina was not available, complainant had been demanding the return of Rubina but he was unsuccessful.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that real accused in this case are Faisal and his wife, that petitioners have nothing to do with the present case, that they had got the employment to Rubina with the consent of her parents, that no case under section 364-A P.P.C. Is made out against the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that though the said Rubina minor girl was handed over to Faisal and his wife but with the consent of complainant party. He further submits that till today the said minor girl is not recovered. S.I. Present in Court submits that Faisal is still at large proceedings under section 87 of 1988 have been initiated against him but submits that Mrs. Faisal was not joined in the investigation being a woman. I have asked him as to quote any provision of law under which the proceedings cannot be initiated against a woman being an accused, he has no answer. He submits that investigation is being conducted by SHO of concerned Police Station.
4. I have heard learned counsel, for the parties. It was the petitioners through whom minor girl Rubina got an employment with Faisal and his wife, she has not been recovered so far. This is a case of bail before arrest. Considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. Their application was dismissed in August, 2001 by learned Additional Sessions Judge and for four months they did not apply for bail before any court, offence falls within' the probability clause of section 497 (1), Cr.P.C. God better knows whether Rubina is still alive or not. This petition is dismissed. However, I direct S.P Model Town, Lahore to look in to the matter personally and see to it that why till today. Faisal has not been arrested and for what ulterior motive the Investigation Officer has not joined Mrs. Faisal who is an accused in this case. Report shall be submitted by S.P. Model Town, Lahore within two weeks to D.R. (Judi.) without fail.