Haji MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Haji Muhammad Siddique, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 435/2003 for offences under sections 452, 354, 148, 149, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, forcibly entered the complainant's house armed with weapons and issued threats regarding a pending murder case. The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained 11-day delay in registering the F.I.R., that he played no active role in the commission of the offence, and that the case was motivated by mala fide intent. The Court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of an active role attributed to the petitioner and the unexplained delay in reporting the incident. Finding merit in the contention regarding mala fide, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry and did not warrant custodial detention at the pre-trial stage.
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally entitle an accused to bail?
- Can an unexplained delay in the registration of an F.I.R. be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of an active role attributed to an accused a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Haji Muhammad Siddique petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.435, dated 2-9-2003, for offences under sections 452, 354, 148/149, 506, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Sahiwal.
2. The prosecution story, in brief as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by Farzand Ali complainant are that on 22-8-2003 at about 9-00/10-00 a.m. Muhammad Siddique petitioner armed with hatchet alongwith his co-accused Muhammad Saleem armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Sharif armed with rifle .7-MM, Muhammad Mumtaz armed with carbine and Muhammad Bashir armed with "Cappa" while climbing over the wall forcibly entered into his house. Muhammad Bashir co- accused caught hold the wife of complainant's brother from her hair and all the co-accused raised a Lalkara that if she will give her statement against them in the murder case of her husband in case F.I.R. No.375 of 2003, they will done her to death. On raising hue and cry, the witnesses attracted to the spot and rescued them from the accused.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a delay of 11 days in the registration of the case; that no active role is attributed to the petitioner; that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he was present armed with a hatchet; that the offence with which the petitioner is charged does no fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the instant case has been registered against the petitioner due to mala fide of the complainant because the petitioner had been siding with the persons who are being involved by Mst. Razia in the murder of her husband.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed this application by contending that there is no mala fide attributable either to the complainant or police; that the role attributed to the petitioner constitutes section 452, P.P.C.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner did not play any active role in the instant case despite the fact that he was allegedly armed with a hatchet. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The delay in the registration of the case is totally unexplained in the F.I.R. The possibility of involvement of the petitioner in the instant case due to the mala fide of the complainant on account of murder of her husband cannot be ruled out at this stage. Resultantly, this application is allowed and the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 3-10-2003 is confirmed.
' Interim pre-arrest .