QAMARUZ ZAMAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, who was accused of offences involving the unauthorized use of a registered trademark and monogram, coupled with allegations of criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the evidentiary inconsistencies during the investigation. The Court observed that the investigation revealed conflicting statements from witnesses regarding the alleged threats. Crucially, the Court determined that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant had made out a case for pre-arrest bail, noting the applicant's apprehension of humiliation if arrested. The interim bail previously granted was confirmed. The judgment reinforces the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the court exercises discretion in favor of granting bail, particularly when the applicant demonstrates a genuine apprehension of harassment or humiliation by law enforcement.
- Does an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when there are conflicting witness statements regarding the alleged occurrence of the offence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The complainant is a Supervisor in Premier Corporation and the said company is sole agent for Exported brake oil in Pakistan. On the day of incident he alongwith Ali Muhammad and Taj Muhammad reached at House No,H-10/6, Nazimabad No,2 and found printing press installed there.
According to F.I.R., the applicant disclosed himself to be the owner of the said press. It is alleged that a lot of printed cotton with the Monogram and Trade Mark, registered with the complainant's company was found there.
The complainant asked for an explanation from applicant but the later used abusive language and took out Churri. He asked the complainant to go away from there otherwise he would kill him.
2. During the investigation P.Ws. stated that some threats were issued by the -applicant, but again two persons stated that no such incident had taken place. Since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. while the applicant apprehends his humiliation at the hands of police, if arrested, a case of bail before arrest is made out. Learned counsel for State could not controvert the position that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
3. Accordingly, -the application is allowed and the interim bail granted earlier is confirmed on the same terms.