GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 93 of 1999 registered at Police Station Rukan, following the refusal of similar relief by the Sessions Judge, Dadu. The prosecution case alleges that the complainant's stolen bullocks were tracked to the vicinity of the applicant's village, where the villagers allegedly admitted guilt and promised return before refusing. The core legal question concerns the propriety of confirming pre-arrest bail where the offense is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or up to ten years, and where mala fides and delay in the FIR are alleged. The court held that the pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed with the concurrence of the state and upon consideration of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense and the direction for the accused to join the investigation.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the offenses involved are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years?
- Does an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the State offers no objection to the relief?
ORDER
1. ' The bail before arrest is sought in Crime No,93 of 1999 registered at Rukan Police Station on refusal of similar request by learned Sessions Judge, Dadu vide his order, dated 23-12-1999.
2. ' Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the complainant owns two Bullocks and on 7-11-1999 at 21-00 hours he woke-up and saw that said bullocks tethered in the courtyard of his house were missing.
3. Subsequently, Footprints Tracker of police station concerned tracked the footprints which were lost near the house of Ranjho Jamali in village Ali Muhammad Jamali. The villagers of aforesaid village viz. The applicant and others came out from their houses, admitted their guilt and assured the complainant party that the stolen bullocks would be returned to them but on insistence that it should be returned immediately, they refused to do so, as such above crime was registered.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant party is inimical to the applicant who is poor Hari and that they in connivance with the police are acting mala fide and have falsely involved the accused persons. He contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 6th of July, 1999, whereas the F.I.R. Has been lodged after inordinate delay on, 7th November, 1999 i,e, about four months. He submits that both the sections applied in this crime are not punishable with sentences of death, imprisonment for life or even for 10 years and that the police is making vigorous ' efforts at the instance of the complainant party to arrest, humiliate and maltreat the applicant who, in these circumstances, apprehends his imminent arrest. Learned counsel submits that pre-arrest bail was earlier granted to the applicant without touching merits of the case, therefore, this bail application can be heard by me. Learned State Counsel has recorded his no objection to the confirmation of the bail so granted to the applicant.
5. ' In view of whatever is stated above, pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant vide order dated 13-1-2000, is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. The applicant is, however, directed to join the investigation.
6. Pre-arrest .
Cited by 1 case
- RASHEED AHMED and 3 others vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2448