Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 YLR 505
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court
Year of Decision: 2025
Decision Date: 2025-01-14
Parties: Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State and others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court on 2025-01-14, officially reported as 2025 YLR 505. In this matter between Muhammad Fayyaz and The State and others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 YLR 505
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Amjad Rafiq Title: Muhammad Fayyaz vs The State and others Case No.: Crl. Misc. No. 75202-B of 2024 Date of Judgment:2025-01-14 Reported As: 2025 YLR 505 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment
ORDER MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR bearing No.552 dated 27.09.2024 registered under sections 324/148/149-P.P.C. at Police Station Niddokay, District Narowal. 2. Heard. Record perused. 3. Petitioner was nominated in the FIR under the allegation that he caused injury with pistol at left ankle of Arshad Ali, injured/father of the complainant Injured underwent medico-legal examination within 02 hours of the occurrence wherein the doctor has observed two injuries i.e. injury No.01 an oval shaped lacerated wound 0.3x 0.2cm with inverted margin at medial side of left ankle and injury No.02 a lacerated oval shaped wound with everted margin lx0.8cm at anterior of left ankle and the doctor has also observed duration of injuries as two hours which is in consonance with the prosecution story. Both the injuries were declared attracting an offence under section 337F(v) P.P.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner raised plea of alibi bat his defence perspective has not been thrashed, therefore, he has filed an application before District Police Officer for first change of investigation which is still pending. So far material available on record connects the petitioner with the commission of offence, therefore, his person is required for the purpose of further investigation and lead for the recovery. False implication is not spurred out from the record. The concession of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons where the intended arrest of an accused is found to be actuated with mala fide on part of the complainant or the police. I have not seen any malice or ulterior motive on part of the complainant/police to falsely implicate the petitioner, therefore, he is not entitled to the extra- ordinary relief of pre-arrest bail as claimed for. Reliance is placed on cases reported as "Gulshan
---
## Page 2
Ali Solangi and others v. The State through P.G. Sindh" (2020 SCMR 249). In this respect," reliance is further placed in case reported as "Ahtisham Ali v. The State" (2023 SCMR 975), it has been held that:- "It is well settled exposition of law that the grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which may be granted in extraordinary situations to protect the liberty of innocent persons in cases lodged with, mala fide intention to harass the person with ulterior motives. By all means, while applying for pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has to satisfy, the Court with regard to the basic conditions quantified under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") vis-a-vis the existence of reasonable grounds to confide that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and the case is one of further inquiry." 4. In view of the above, the instant petition stands dismissed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled.