1997 PLP 1752 (MLD)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/109/148/149‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail‑‑‑ Pre‑arrest bail to be allowed to avoid humiliation to accused when same was ultimately to be granted to him under rule of consistency ‑‑‑Co‑accused having been assigned an active role had already been released on bail‑‑‑Accused who was a Government servant serving in the Police Department was to suffer humiliation if he was sent to jail and then enlarged on bail following the rule of consistency‑‑‑Accused had also been found innocent by two Investigating Officers‑‑‑No reasonable grounds, thus, existed to believe that accused was guilty of the offence alleged against him and sufficient grounds were available for further inquiry in his case‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail was allowed to accused in circumstances. Faryad Ali Ch. for Petitioner. Javed Iqbal Awan, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. The petitioner seeks pre‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 131/94 dated 12‑2‑1994 under sections 302/324/109/148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Tandalianwala, District Faisalabad against the petitioner and other 25 co‑accused on the complaint of one Ghulam Murtaza. The earlier bail petitions of the petitioner before the learned Sessions Court were dismissed for non -prosecution.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel for petitioner that no active role has been assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R. except that of his presence at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that the petitioner is Government servant and shall suffer irreparable loss and humiliation if the pre‑arrest bail is refused in spite of malicious prosecution by the complainant party. It is further submitted that all the other co‑accused who had been assigned a positive role have already been enlarged on bail and no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner behind the bars in the circumstances of the case. It is further asserted that the petitioner had been declared innocent by the local police as well as the Range Crime Police. The learned counsel has relied on a judgment reported in 1986 SCMR 1380 to show that if the petitioner was entitled to bail after arrest on the ground of his co‑accused already on bail, there was no reason to deny him pre‑arrest bail, if there was no special circumstance for such refusal.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General and the Investigating Officer present in the Court with record have not been able to controvert the position taken by the learned counsel for petitioner. I find that the co -accused of petitioner, who had been assigned an active role have already been released on bail and no useful purpose would be served at this stage by sending the petitioner to Jail. The rule of consistency is to be followed in such‑like cases. The petitioner has been found innocent by the two Investigating Officers. In my prima facie view there are no reasonable grounds that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged against him and that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry in the matter. The petitioner is a Government servant serving in the Police Department and it will bring humiliation to him if he is sent to Jail and then enlarged on bail following the rule of consistency. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./G/35/L Pre‑arrest bail granted.