WAQAR AHMAD And Another vs THE STATE
The petitioners, Waqar Ahmed Malik and Mst. Kausar Parveen, filed an application seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 339 registered at Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rawalpindi, for offences under sections 364/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after their initial bail application was dismissed in limine by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail for the alleged abduction of the first petitioner's former wife. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain the whereabouts of the grown-up abductee who went missing from their house, and given the serious nature of the heinous offence and lack of exculpatory material on record, the pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail in heinous offences involving missing persons cannot be granted when the accused fail to satisfactorily account for the missing person and no grounds for false involvement are established.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused fail to satisfactorily explain the whereabouts of an abductee missing from their house?
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case involving heinous offences under sections 364 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without sufficient material on record to justify it?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners, Waqar Ahmed Malik and Mst. Kausar Parveen, are seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 339, dated 23-6-2001, registered at Police Station Sadiqabad, District Rawalpindi, for the offence under sections 364/109, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Basharar Mahmood the brother of the abductee Mst. Rakhshanda Waqar, and the were of petitioner No. 1 for an occurrence which is alleged to have takenplace on 1-6-2001, when abductee, the were of the petitioner No.1 became missing from the house ofpetitioner No. 1.
2. The petitioner---s application for the grant of pre-arrest bail has been dismissed in limine by the Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi on 25-6-2001.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case against the petitioners is false the alleged abductee was divorced by petitioner No.1 on 19-6-2001 and she went missing, on her own, from 20-6-2001 by leaving the house of petitioner No.1 and he does not know her whereabouts and the petitioners have been involved falsely by the in-laws of petitioner No.1 because he has divorced his former were and petitioner No.2 has been falsely involved because the petitioner No.1 contracted marriage with her against the wishes of his former were.
4. A grown-up woman is missing from the house of petitioner No.1 it is alleged by the complainant that she has been done away by the petitioners with the connivance of one author. The petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the whereabouts of the abductee.It is a very serious allegation of the commission of a heinous offence and so far there is no material available on the record to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners dismissed in limine.