1981SCMR1139 (PLP)

Ss.498 & 498-A-Pre-arrest bail-Petitioner, in order to justify grant of pre-arrest bail, must show apprehension of his arrest on account of ulterior motives-Grant of pre-arrest bail-Not a rule Allegations made in first information report and result of post-mortem examination, held, justified refusal of pre-arrest bail in case in hand Raja Muhammad Sabir, Advocate and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Zamir Ahmad Khan, Advocate and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on Record for Respondent No.

1. M. Asif Jan, Assistant Advocate-General (Punjab) and M. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.

2. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and dispose it of accordingly. The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the Lahore High Court dated the 28th of October, 1975, whereby bail before arrest has been allowed to the respondent Yamin Khan in a case relating to the murder of the petitioner's son Asrar Jilani.

2. According to the first information report lodged by the appellant on 7-3-1975, the respondent was wanting to establish sexual relations with the deceased boy, but the latter was resisting, and it was for the reason that the respondent deliberately crushed the deceased under his tractor when the deceased was riding a bicycle on his way to the village. It is alleged that the respondent deliberately chased the deceased into the wheat field, hitting him with his tractor from behind. In the first instance, a challan was submitted under section 304-A, P. P. C., but as a result of further investigation by the Crimes Branches the offence was changed to one under section 302, P. P. C.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits .that the final order made by the High Court confirming the interim bail already allowed on 18-10-1975 does not disclose any reasons whatsoever, nor does the earlier order show why the High Court regarded it a fit case for bail before arrest. He next submits that on the facts alleged in the first information report, it would clearly appear that the respondent had a motive to kill the deceased, and that he deliberately used his tractor as a weapon of offence. Learned counsel contends that, irrespective of the nature of the offence ultimately found against the respondent, no justi fication was at all made out for bail before arrest, which is not the rule under the criminal law.

4. On behalf of the respondent, it is submitted that the case is once against under investigation and that the medical evidence does not support the allegation that the deceased was crushed under the tractor. Accord ing to Mr. Zamir Ahmed Khan, the medical evidence only shows that the deceased was hit from behind.

5. We consider that for the disposal of the present appeal, it is not. necessary for us to express any considered opinion as to the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent. Suffice it to say that on the allegations made in the first information report, and the result of the post-mortem examination, no justification was A made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail; which is not the rule in criminal cases. In order to justify the grant of such bail, the petitioner must show that he apprehends his arrest on account of ulterior motives, which was certainly not the case here.

6. We would accordingly accept this appeal and cancel the bail allowed to the respondent by the High Court. It will be open to the competent Court to consider the question of bail after the respondent has been arrested in accordance with law. Bail cancelled.