Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ILYAS VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad AslamIftikhar Ahmad,Malik Suleman Awan
2006 Y L R 1404
2006 Y L R 1404
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J
MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 2 others---Petitioners
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5857-B of 2005, decided on 14th September, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506---Bail before arrest, refusal of---Bail earlier granted to accused was cancelled for non-prosecution and again it was granted for a number of times, but was dismissed as accused did not join investigation---No ground for grant of bail once again was made out---Bail before arrest could only be granted when pre-requisites as enunciated in cases PLD 1984 SC 192 and PLD 1983 SC 82 were available---Petition for bail before arrest being without any merit, was dismissed.
Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 and Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82 ref.
Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioners.
Malik Suleman Awan for the State.
Date of hearing: 14th September, 2005.
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.137 dated 8-3-2005 registered under sections 468/467/471/420/ 506/406/379, P.P.C. at Police Station, Gulshan-e-Ravi, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners did not own vehicle, so the question of sale of the same to the complainant did not arise; the delay in lodging of F.I.R. is unexplained which evidences false involvement of the petitioners.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the complainant vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioners on the ground that they are nominated in the F.I.R.; that they did not join the investigation and the initial investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer reveals that they are guilty of the offence.
4. Heard and record perused.
5. The case was registered on 8-3-2005. The petitioners namely Shahid Mehmood and Muhammad Ilyas obtained interim bail which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25-3-2005. Again pre-arrest bail was sought and relief of interim bail was allowed till 25-4-2005. They again did not join the investigation and initiated proceedings for quashment of the F.I.R. Their application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 29-6-2005. They approached this Court on 9-7-2005 and were granted interim bail, but inspite of this concession, they did not join the investigation. The petitioners prima facie, appears to be involved in the case. No grounds for grant of bail are made out.
6. It is well-settled principle of law that bail before arrest can only be granted when pre-requisites as enunciated in the case of Zia-ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 SC 192 are available. Following the principle of law declared in Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82 and Zia ul-Hassan's case (supra), this petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-150/L Bail refused.