ANSAR MAHN400D AND 2 Others vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court cancelling the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners by the Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 149, and 302/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to the petitioners on the ground that they were only attributed simple injuries, and whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the same under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly cancelled the pre-arrest bail, observing that the ground relied upon by the Sessions Judge was not available for granting pre-arrest bail, especially when the accused were named in the First Information Report for serious offences and no mala fides or political motives were alleged. The petition was accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may seek post-arrest bail after being taken into custody.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted solely on the ground that an accused was only attributed simple injuries in a murder case?
- Are the grounds for granting post-arrest bail identical to those required for pre-arrest bail?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court cancel pre-arrest bail granted by a lower court?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 26-9- 1978, passed by a Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he cancelled the order dated 25-6-1978 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, granting bail before arrest to the petitioners.
2. A case under sections 149, and 302/149, P. P. C. Has been registered against the petitioners and some others. The petitioners and one of their co-accused, Painda Khan moved the Add]. Sessions Judge, Gujrat, for bail before arrest. The Addl. Sessions Judge refused bail to Painda Khan apparently on the ground that the allegation against him was that he bad caused injuries to the deceased. He, however, admitted the petitioners to pre-arrest bail on the ground that they did not cause any injury to the deceased and the complainant only attributed that simple injuries to them.
3. On a petition under section 497(5), Cr. P.' C. Being moved by the complainant for cancellation of bail, the learned Judge in the High Court observed that the petitioners were named in the F. I. R. And a specific role of causing injuries to the complainant was attributed to them. They were accused of the offence under sections 148 and 302/149; P. P. C. And the ground on which the Addl. Sessions Judge bad allowed bail was not available in a case of bail before arrest, but may be relevant after a person has been arrested. He, accordingly, cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioners by the Addl. Sessions Judge.
4. Before us, Dr. Khalid Ranjha has attempted to agitate the same plea which found favour with the Addl. Sessions Judge. We; however, are entirely in agreement with the High Court that this is not at all a fit case for grant of bail before arrest. No allegation that the petitioners have bee involved in this case on account of political or some similar motive has bee made. They are accused of serious criminal offences and it is yet too early to speculate on the degree of their responsibility in the incident. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, rightly cancelled their pre-arrest bail.
5. The petitioners should, therefore, be taken into custody and they may, if so advised, apply for bail after their arrest to the Sessions Judge after some time.
6. This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.