Asif Pervaiz And Other vs The State
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal matter involving allegations of abduction of the complainant's sons. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in circumstances where repeated police investigations yielded conflicting opinions regarding their guilt, there was a significant delay in lodging the first information report, and the victims had not been recovered at the instance of the petitioners. The Lahore High Court held that since the police were not in possession of reliable evidence to establish guilt and the petitioners had consistently joined the investigation, their arrest was not vital at this belated stage. The court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds, while granting liberty to the prosecution to seek bail cancellation if reliable evidence was collected in the future. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when prolonged and repeated investigations fail to produce definitive evidence of guilt and the accused continuously cooperates with the investigation.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when repeated police investigations yield conflicting opinions regarding the guilt of the accused?
- Is the arrest of an accused considered vital at a belated stage when they have consistently joined the investigation?
- Does a significant delay in lodging the first information report provide grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail?
ORDER M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, ].-- The petitioners have been indicted for the crime of abduction of Aashar, step son, and Haroon, real son of the complainant in collaboration with others.
2. Occurrence of the alleged incident had taken place on 14.8.1997 and the matter was reported by the complainant at the Police Station South Cantt, Lahore on 4.3.1998. Earlier to that the complainant had moved ah application before S.H.O., of the said Police Station on 31.8.1997 regarding non-availability of his sons, who had left for Gujranwala and did not return. Qn the basis of that application, police recorded report No. 9 in the daily diary of the Police Station on 31.8.1997.
3. The petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking pre-arrest bail. They were allowed interim anticipatory bail through order, dated 27.3.2002.
4. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioners were associated in the investigation by the police. According to him, the petitioners were found , not guilty during first four investigations conducted by Rafaqat, AS1, SHO of the Police Station concerned; D.S.P., Defence Circle, and D.S.P., CIA staff, Qila Gujjar Singh. She adds that S.P., CIA, Lahore opined that the petitioners were guilty, whereas S.S.P., Crimes Branch, Lahore in clear cut terms stated that sufficient proof is not available against the petitioners oh the basis of which their arrest could be made and he did not arrest them although he had the full authority to do so. She next, argues that there was six/seven months' delay in lodging of the F.I.R, and the' petitioners were not - even suspected of the crime in the very first application moved by the complainant before the S.H.O., Police Station South Cantt., Lahore and as such case against them is not free from doubt; and that they have already undergone rigours of protracted investigations, but Azhare and Haroon could not be recovered at their instance. She also pointed out that Aashar and Haroon are involved in different cases and the possibility that they have hibernated somewhere to avoid their possible arrest cannot be ruled out altogether.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioners are guilty and that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigators because of which Azhare and Haroon could not be traced out. learned counsel for the State adopts arguments of learned counsel for the complaint. They both oppose grant of bail tp the petitioner.
6. Both the sides have been heard at length. This matter is hanging on i.e since 14.8.1997. Repeated investigations by different investigators have been carried out and till today the stand of the police is that they are not in possession of reliable evidence on the basis of which arrest of the petitioners could be made. So far the police is not sure of guilt of the petitioners for want of evidence. The petitioner shave been constantly joining the investigation and for that reason I am of the view that their arrest is not absolutely vital at this belated stage.
7. For all these reasons, interim anticipatory bail already allowed to the petitioners is. Hereby confirmed subject tp their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
8. It is, however, observed that if the police become successful in collecting some reliable evidence against the petitioners, then the prosecution would be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail.