P L D 2016 Supreme Court 171 (PLP)
Malik NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Syed SHAMAS-UL-ABBAS and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2016 Supreme Court 171 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ |
| Parties | Malik NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Syed SHAMAS-UL-ABBAS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2016 Supreme Court 171 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2016 Supreme Court 171 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Manzoor Ahmad Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2016 Supreme Court 171 (PLP) (Malik NAZIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus Syed SHAMAS-UL-ABBAS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Malik Ejaz Hussain Goredi, Advocate Supreme Court and A.H. Masood, Advocate-on-Record with Respondent No.1 in person.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F
Pre-arrest bail granted by High Court on the ground that offence under S.489-F, P.P.C. did not entail any recovery to be affected from the accused person, and if recovery was not to be affected from accused in a criminal case then he could not be refused pre-arrest bail
Such generalization/ approach adopted by the Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court could not be approved as it militated against the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 because arrest of an accused person during investigation of a criminal case was not meant only for affecting recovery from his possession but such arrest was made for the purpose of investigating the circumstances of the case and collecting evidence and recovery, where required, was only one of the components of the investigation
While investigating an offence physical custody of an accused person may be required by the investigating agency for ascertaining and verifying the circumstances being alleged by the complainant party and even for confirmation of the circumstances of the case put forth and advanced by the accused person in his defence
Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision on the pre-arrest bail application filed by accused on the merits of the case, and directed that till a fresh decision on the matter, the accused shall remain on ad interim pre-arrest bail, which may or may not be confirmed by the High Court depending upon the final decision of the matter on merits.
Judgment & Decree
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Through this petition Malik Nazir Ahmed petitioner/complainant has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 517-B of 2015/BWP whereby respondent No. 1 namely Syed Shamas-ul-Abbas had been admitted to pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 153 registered at Police Station Saddar Ahmedpur East, District Bahawalpur on 19.10.2014 in respect of an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record of the case with their assistance.
3. We note that respondent No. 1 had been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court primarily upon the ground that an offence under section 489-F, P.P.C. did not entail any recovery to be affected from the accused person and if recovery is not to be affected from an accused person in a criminal case then he cannot to be refused pre-arrest bail in such case. While holding so the learned Judge-in-Chamber had referred to his own order passed in the case of Abdul Sattar v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 173) wherein similar views had earlier on been expressed in some other case. We have found the said approach adopted by the Hon'ble Judge to be militating against the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it had not been appreciated by the Hon'ble Judge that arrest of an accused person during the investigation of a criminal case is not meant only for effecting recovery from his possession but such arrest is made for the purposes of investigating the circumstances of the case and collecting evidence and recovery, where required, is only one of the components of the investigation. If the view held by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court is allowed to hold the field then pre-arrest bail may not be refused to an accused person even in a case of rape or in a case of murder by throttling or even in a case of planning for terrorism where recovery may not be relevant and that surely was never the intention of the law. While investigating an offence physical custody of an accused person may be required by the investigating agency for ascertaining and verifying the circumstances being alleged by the complainant party and even for confirmation of the circumstances of the case put forth and advanced by the accused person in his defence. It cannot, therefore, be said with any generalization that an investigation into a criminal offence is meant only for effecting a recovery from the accused person and in a case where no recovery needs to be effected such accused person cannot be arrested or cannot be refused bail. Such generalization by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court has, therefore, been found by us to be not a proper generalization to receive approval of this Court. In this view of the matter the legal position declared by the Hon'ble Judge in the reported case of Abdul Sattar (supra) is disapproved. Apart from what has been observed above we note that the view held by the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court eliminates the consideration of mala fide on the part of the police or the complainant party which consideration is one of the prerequisites for pre-arrest bail in a case involving a non-bailable offence. This petition is consequently converted into an appeal and the same is allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court on 18.03.2015 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.517-B of 2015/BWP is set aside, the matter is remanded to the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur for a fresh decision of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 517-B of 2015/BWP on the merits of the case and it is ordered that till a fresh decision of the said matter respondent No.1 shall remain on ad-interim pre-arrest bail in the relevant criminal case which may or may not be confirmed by the High Court depending upon the final decision of the matter on its merits. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are directed to appear before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur on 14.01.2016. If Mr.Justice Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi of the Lahore High Court, who had passed the impugned order in the present case, is not holding Court at the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court on the said date then the matter may be fixed before and decided by any other Hon'ble Judge holding Court at that Bench on that date. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to Mr. Justice Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for his information and guidance. MWA/N-13/S Case remanded.