2026 PLP 393 (YLR)

Johar Ali, J.

This Pre-Arrest Bail Application under Section 498 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners/accused for grant of their pre-arrest bail in Criminal Case arising out of FIR No.81/2025, registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 337-A and 506(ii) P.P.C at Police Station City District Gilgit.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that former Pre-arrest Bail Application under Section 498 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioners/accused was declined by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 19-07-2025. Being aggrieved from the said order, the petitioners/accused have filed the instant petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C for grant of their pre-arrest bail.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution's case according to the FIR is that on 08-05-2025, at about 6:50pm, the complainant along with his father was parking his car at PIA Link Road Gilgit, while going towards house of his paternal aunt. Meanwhile, the petitioner/accused No.1 along with some other co-accused quarreled with complainant and his father on parking issue and attacked them with iron rods, hammers, pipes and sticks. Resultantly, both the complainant and his father received severe injuries, hence, the aforementioned FIR No.81/2025 was registered at Police Station City Gilgit on written application of the complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that petitioners/accused are innocent and they have been malafidely involved in the present case. He further argued that the complainant with the collusion of police just wanted to harass and humiliates the petitioners/accused by involving them in the present case, hence, instant FIR was registered against the petitioners/accused. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners/accused are law abiding citizens and even they cannot think to commit an offence, but the complainant has malafidely involved the petitioners/ accused in the instant case with ill intentions. He further contended that Sections 147, 341 and 337-A P.P.C is bailable while Sections 148 and 506(ii) P.P.C are non-bailable and punishment of said Sections 148 and 506(ii) P.P.C does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. To strengthen his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused referred the following case law:- 2009 YLR 184 [Karachi), 2009 YLR 187 (Lahore), 2016 YLR 2507 (Sindh (Sukkur Bench)) and 2017 YLR Note 32 (Sindh (Sukkur Bench)). Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused has prayed for acceptance of the instant pre-arrest bail petition by confirmation of the ad-interim pre-arrest bail facility granted by Vacations Judge of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 19-07-2025.

5. Conversely, the learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the Bail Application by contending that petitioners/accused are directly nominated in the FIR and all offences fully attract in the case. They further argued that the accused have severely injured the complainant as well as his father, resultantly father of the complainant remained in hospital under treatment for seventeen days. They further submitted that Section 337-A falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C and punishment of said Section is ten years. On the basis of above, the learned DAG and counsel for the complainant prayed for dismissal of the instant bail petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully examined the material available on record.

7. From perusal of record it transpires that the petitioner No.1/accused and two others are directly nominated in the FIR and the allegations levelled therein indeed disclose commission of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 337-A and 506(ii) P.P.C. Since scene of alleged occurrence has been committed at PIA Link Road Gilgit which is a most populated area and is a hub of selling auto-parts of various vehicles by various people of almost all the districts of Gilgit-Baltistan as well as citizens of KPK and Punjab, and various kinds of workshops of vehicles are situated in the area. Despite that, the complainant has failed to produce a single private witness regarding the occurrence which shows that the complainant has malafidely lodged the instant FIR just to harass the petitioners/accused in the hands of police. Moreover, as per contents of FIR, the petitioners/accused have beaten complainant and his father as such the complainant and his father got severe injuries on head and vital parts of body, whereas, the prosecution has failed to submit Medico Legal Report yet despite lapse of two months. Moreover, the principal accused namely Mohammad Abbas, who is directly nominated in the FIR, has already been released on bail by the learned Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 29-05-2025, passed in Cr. Misc. No.65/2025, and acquitted him from the charges levelled in the FIR due to compromise between the parties, hence, the petitioners/accused are also entitled for concession of bail. However, it is a settled proposition of law that grant of pre-arrest bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, rather it is meant to protect innocent persons from humiliation and undue harassment at the hands of the police or complainant when a case of mala fides or ulterior motive is made out.

8. Admittedly, Sections 147, 341 and 337-A P.P.C are bailable, whereas, Sections 148 and 506(ii) P.P.C are non-bailable, the punishment provided therein does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The allegations of mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as the police cannot be ruled out at this stage.

9. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioners/accused have succeeded in making out a case for confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the instant bail petition is allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail facility already granted to the petitioners/accused by the Hon'ble Vacations Judge of this Court vide order dated 19-07-2025 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions as laid down therein. JK/37/GB Petition allowed.