FIRDAUS HUSSAIN SHAH and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest ad interim bail filed by Firdaus Hussain Shah and two others seeking confirmation of bail in case F.I.R. No. 63 registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. on 3-3-2002 for offences under sections 379, 427, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including ongoing civil disputes over property possession. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners joined the investigation, no empties were recovered, no injuries were caused, and the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, sending the petitioners to jail would serve no useful purpose on technical grounds. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds, thereby laying down the principle that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where offences fall outside the prohibitory clause and accused individuals fully cooperate with the investigation amidst underlying civil disputes.
- Are petitioners entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does joining the investigation by the accused influence the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the existence of a prior or contemporaneous civil suit regarding property possession impact criminal bail proceedings?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners Firdaus Hussain Shah, Syed Zainul Abidin and Fida Hussain Shah seek confirmation of their pre-arrest ad Interim bail in case F.I.R. No,63 registered at Police Station Multan Cantt. On 3- 3-2002 for offences under sections 379/427/452/ 148/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, the allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners alongwith 10/15 persons entered into the house of the complainant and Zainul Abideen petitioner who was armed with 12 bore repeater fired in the air. It is further alleged that the petitioners demolished the outer wall and two rooms belonging to the complainant and removed certain valuables.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. No empties were recovered from the spot. Admittedly, the petitioners have joined the investigation. A civil suit was also filed by the complainant against the petitioners on the next day after the registration of F.I.R. seeking perpetual injunction that the petitioner should not interfere or trespass into the possession and property of the complainant. It appears that the bone of contention is possession of a plot. The offences do not attract prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and no injury was caused to the complainant or to any other P.W. In these circumstances no useful purpose would be served if the petitioners are sent, to jail on some technical grounds.
4. For what has been discussed above I confirm the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 16-5-2002 subject to their furnishing ,fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.