Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2020-B of 1983, decided on 27th August, 1983.

---S.497/498--Bail before arrest--Accused named in first information report alleged to be armed with lethal weapons, failing to appear before trial Court despite clear direction to attend and not satisfying conditions for pre-arrest bail--Bail refused.

Murad Khan v Fazal-e-Subhan and another P L D 1983 S C 82; Mohib Raziq v. Shah Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1130 and Shabbir Ahmad v. The State P L D 1981 Lah. 599 (F.B) ref.

Mian Sher Alam for Petitioners.

Mian Mushtaq Ahmad for the State.

Mehr Ghulam Mubashar for Complainant

The petitioners alongwith 22 others are charged with forming an un-lawful assembly on 12th July,1983 at 3-00 p.m. in the area of Chak No.3 Shamali, P.S.Bhalwal, District Sargodha and in furtherance of their common intention having fired gun-shots at the complainant party causing fire-arm injuries to Hubdar Shah, Liaquat, Akram, Riaz Shah and Fida Hussain.

2. The petitioners applied for bail before arrest to the Sessions Court, Sargodha but their application was dismissed on 31st July, .1983. They have now approached this Court for pre-arrest bail.

3. Bail is urged on the ground that there is cross-version of the case in that Aftab Ahmad has also lodged a cross-case against the complainant party implicating 35 persons for causing fire-arm injury to Ahmed Khan. It is further contended that discriminatory treatment has been meted out to the petitioners because the opposite party has been bailed out while this concession has been denied to the petitioners. It is argued that it is yet to be seen as to which party was the aggressor.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed the bail. According to him the petitioners being fugitive from justice do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. According to him, they were directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha to appear on the subsequent dated before him but they did not do so. It is next contended that the case registered at the instance of the accused party has been found to be false by the police during initial investigation and lastly, that most of the injuries on the persons of the injured P.Ws. are on the non-vital parts of their bodies.

5. Conditions for the grant o. pre-arrest bail have been set forth in Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another P L D 1983 S C 82 namely, arrest being for ulterior motive, such as humiliation and unjustified harassment, prosecution motivated by malice so as to cause irreparable injuries to citizens' reputation and liberty. In Mohib Raziq v. Shah Muhammad 1983 S C M R 1130, it was held that pre-arrest bail may be granted when no prima facie case was made out or involvement of the accused appeared to be apparently false or for ulterior motive or arrest to be otherwise unjustified or likely to cause irreparable harm. Learned counsel for the complainant has also relied on Shabbir Ahmad v. State P L D 1981 Lah. 599 (FB) to show that the presence of the petitioner before the Sessions Cc. in on the date of hearing of the application was mandatory and as they were not present on the day when the bail application was disposed of they are not entitled to bail.

6. As the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and are alleged to be armed with lethal weapons and did not appear in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 13th July,1983, despite a clear direction to that effect and do not satisfy the conditions enumerated above, I do not, A therefore consider them entitled to the privilege of pre-arrest bail and accordingly dismiss their application. It would not be out of place to mention that Ghazanfar Ali, petitioner is absent even today.

M. Y. H. Bail refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.