Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: QAISER BUTT VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Fahim Ahmed SiddiquiRiaz Ahmed Bhatti
2020 Y L R Note 68 [Sindh] Before Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J QAISER BUTT---Applicant Versus The STATE---Respondent Criminal Bail Application No. 935 of 2019, decided on 24th July, 2019. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380, 457 & 34---Theft in dwelling house etc, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, common intention---Interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Further inquiry---Delay in lodging the FIR was not properly explained---No source of information had been mentioned nor any prosecution witness had been cited in the FIR---Name of the accused was put by the investigator in column 2, which indicated that after investigation, the accused was found innocent---Alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C and in such cases rule was bail---Nominated co-accused had been released on bail as such the pre arrest bail of the accused could not be denied---Case of pre-arrest bail had been successfully made out, hence the interim bail order in favour of accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Riaz Ahmed Bhatti for Applicant. Javed Ahmed Baloch for the Complainant. Sagheer Ahmed Abbasi, A.P.G. for the State. ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.---This order will suffice for disposal of the instant pre-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Qaiser Butt son of Muhammad Riaz. The applicant is involved in an FIR bearing number 101/ 2019, which was lodged by the complainant under Sections 380, 457 and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Bin Qasim, Karachi. 2. After lodgement of the said FIR, the applicant succeeded in getting ad interim relief from this Court vide order dated 05-07-2019 after rejection of his similar plea from the lower forum. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the material available before me or placed during arguments. From whatever argued and cited, I have observed as under: a) Date of incident has been described in the body of FIR as 14.06.2019 during night time in a duration of 0200 hours to 0500 hours but it was reported on the same date at 4:20 p.m. The delay in lodgement of FIR is not properly explained. b) In the FIR, no source of information has been mentioned nor any prosecution witness has been cited. Even the reasons for believing that the applicant is one of the felonious person regarding the alleged incident. c) As per the interim Final Report (Challan), the name of the applicant was put by the Investigator in column 2, which indicates that after investigation, the applicant was found innocent. d) During investigation, it was noticed by the Investigator that the applicant was available at the alleged time of incident in Aga Khan Hospital with his wife. e) The offence alleged, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such cases rule is bail not to jail. f) The nominated co-accused, in the instant matter, has been released on bail as such the pre-arrest bail plea of the applicant could not be denied in the light of dictum laid down by the Apex Court in a case reported as Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah 1986 SCMR 1380. 4. In view of the above observation, I am of considered opinion that a case of pre-arrest bail has been successfully made out, hence the interim bail order passed in favour of the applicant is confirmed on the same terms and conditions. 5. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant after confirmation of pre-arrest bail will not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied that the applicant becomes absconder and fugitive to law and trial, then the trial Court is fully justified and competent to take every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court. 6. These are the reasons for my short order dated 18-07-2019 and I would like to make it clear that, the above observations are purely tentative in nature, and the same are only for the purpose of disposal of instant pre-arrest bail application and would have no impact or effect on either party's case during trial. ADN/Q-9/Sindh Bail confirmed.