Pre-arrest bail

Concession of pre-arrest bail is an extra ordinary relief, which is meant only for innocent persons where intended arrest of accused is found to be actuated with mala fide on the part of complainant or police.

Theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel, house trespass, lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night to commit an offence, causing shajjah-i-khafifah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Pre-arrest bail

Protective ad-interim pre-arrest bail, grant of

Accused sought protective ad-interim pre-arrest bail to enable him to appear before the Court

No effort was shown on the part of the applicant/accused to make any attempt to surrender before the competent Court to justify the pre-arrest interim bail which had been filed in the first instance before the High Court

No documentary evidence was annexed with the application to demonstrate any resistance on the part of the complainants or otherwise, or any breach of peace concerning the applicant/accused surrendering himself before the Trial Court

Therefore, no case of pre-arrest bail was made out in the facts and circumstances of the case

Pre-arrest bail was converted into a protective bail and the applicant was granted protective bail for 15 days

Applicant was to surrender before the Trial Court

Petition was disposed of.

Grant of bail before arrest was an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives

Pre-arrest bail was not to be used as a substitute or as an alternative for post-arrest bail

Bail before arrest could not be granted unless the person seeking it satisfied the conditions specified through subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C, i.e. unless he established the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that there were, in fact, sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry into his guilt; not just that but in addition thereto, he must also show that his arrest was being sought for ulterior motive, particularly on the part of the police, to cause irreparable humiliation to him and to disgrace and dishonour him; such a petitioner should further establish that he had not done or suffered any act which would disentitle him to a discretionary relief in equity e.g. he had no past criminal record or that he had not been a fugitive from law; and finally that;in the absence of a reasonable and a justifiable cause, a person desiring his admission to bail before arrest must in the first instance approach the Court of first instance i.e. the Court of Sessions, before petitioning the High Court for the purpose.

Once the Court reaches at the conclusion that in case of dismissal of pre-arrest bail the accused would become entitled for his release on post-arrest bail then it would be a futile exercise to (refuse pre-arrest bail and) send the accused to prison.

Held: Any practice whereby police authorities treat mere filing of a petition before Supreme Court as an implied stay or bar to arrest, despite dismissal of pre-arrest bail, indicates a misunderstanding of the purpose of pre-arrest bail

Such relief exists as an exceptional measure to protect individuals against arbitrary or mala fide arrest, where circumstances clearly warrant such protection

Once a competent Court has declined pre-arrest bail, it has necessarily determined that no such exceptional circumstances exist and arrest is lawful and necessary to ensure an effective investigation

Allowing mere act of filing another petition to operate as a de facto stay would render judicial determination meaningless, defeat the objective of ensuring prompt and fair investigation and risk abuse of process by enabling accused persons to indefinitely evade arrest without any legal basis

Judicial orders must remain binding and enforceable unless and until a competent Court expressly orders otherwise

Interim protection is not automatic; it must be specifically sought and expressly granted

In absence of such order, a refusal of bail remains fully operative and must be implemented promptly and in good faith by investigating authorities

Investigating officers and police authorities are legally bound to act upon Court orders dismissing pre-arrest bail immediately, without waiting for further instructions or presuming existence of any stay where none has been granted

Administrative convenience, internal practice, or mere pendency of higher-forum proceedings cannot justify or excuse failure to act in accordance with law

Petitioner withdrew his pre-arrest bail application

Petition was dismissed.

Allegation in the FIR can be categorized as having two limbs; first limb was of rape with 15 years old daughter of complainant alleged against applicant No.1, and second limb of threatening the complainant was alleged against Applicant No.2

Victim and complainant also swore affidavits that they had no objection to confirmation of the interim bail granted to the accused

Offence ascribed to applicant No.1 was non-bailable and non-compoundable, which fell within the scope of the prohibitory clause

Assertion of falsity of the FIR and mala fides underpinning its registration was shorn away from its standpoint by the forensic report that had since come to the fore

Allegations relating to applicant No.2, even if accepted, the offences under Ss.502(2) & 504, P.P.C are bailable and the possibility of him having been unnecessarily roped into the fray could not be ruled out

Interim bail granted to applicant No.1 stood recalled whereas that granted to applicant No.2 stood confirmed accordingly.

Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which may be granted in extraordinary situations so as to protect innocent persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives

Pre-arrest bail is not to be granted as a substitute or an alternative to post-arrest bail.

Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at bail stage and only tentative assessment is to be made.

Accused normally can approach in the first instance the Court of Sessions for bail before arrest as propriety so demands but depending on the compelling circumstances, an accused can approach the High Court directly by invoking its concurrent jurisdiction.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the court can consider the merits of the case in addition to the element of mala fide/ulterior motives

Courts of law are under the bounded duty to entertain a broader interpretation of the "law of bail" while interpreting material placed before it arrive at a conclusion.

It is not possible in every case to prove the mala fide but the same can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case

If an accused person has a good case for post-arrest bail then merely at the wish of the complainant, he cannot be sent behind bars for a few days by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail.

While seeking pre-arrest bail it is the duty of the accused to establish and prove mala fide on the part of the Investigating Agency or the complainant

Bail before arrest is meant to protect innocent citizens who have been involved in heinous offences with mala fide and ulterior motives

Grant of pre-arrest bail essentially requires considerations of mala fide, an ulterior motive, or abuse of the process of law.

While granting such exceptional remedy to a person, Court must examine the case with a view to see the correctness or falsity of the case i.e. whether the facts alleged in the FIR do constitute commission of a cognizable offence

There is no legal provision for pre-arrest bail unlike post arrest bail.

Grounds for grant of pre-arrest bail stated.

Essential conditions, detailed.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

Grant of pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which may be granted in extraordinary situations to protect the liberty of innocent persons in cases lodged with mala fide intention to harass the person with ulterior motives

While applying for pre-arrest bail, the petitioner has to satisfy the Court with regard to the basic conditions quantified under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") vis-à-vis the existence of reasonable grounds to confide that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against him and the case is one of further inquiry.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

Merits of the case can be touched upon while adjudicating extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail.

Transitory ad-interim pre-arrest bail, explained.

Presence of the accused before the court for pre-arrest bail in the case is a must/mandatory and without his presence, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted.

Presence of the accused before the court for pre-arrest bail in the case was a must/mandatory and without his presence, pre-arrest bail could not be granted

Petitioner being not maintainable was dismissed.

Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, which is to be extended in rareand exceptional circumstances to the accused but at the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that liberty of a person is one of the paramount and inalienable right guaranteed under the Constitution, which cannot be abridged lightly

One of the prime purposes of pre-arrest bail is to prevent the mala fide prosecution of innocent persons

Term "mala fide" is not a uniformly identified term

Being a state of mind, the term "mala fide" cannot always be proved through direct evidence, and it is often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Once the Court reaches at the conclusion that in case of dismissal of pre-arrest bail the accused would become entitled for his release on post-arrest bail then it would be mere futile exercise to send him to prison.

If an accused has a good case for post-arrest bail then mere at the wish of complainant, he cannot be sent behind the bars for few days by dismissing his application for pre-arrest bail.

Not possible in each and every case to prove mala fide but the same can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of the case.

While granting pre-arrest bail even the merits of the case can be touched upon.

If there appear reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life, he would not be released on bail until and unless the case is covered by any of the provisions in subsection(1) of S. 497, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Bail can not be granted to accused, without considering merits of the case, merely on the plea that every accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise, as the very concept and purpose of drawing a line between bailable and non-bailable offences as well as various kinds of punishments as prescribed by the law, shall stand frustrated

Discretion vested in the Courts is to be exercised in a judicial fashion and in the light of facts of each case

Where the prosecution collects enough material to constitute reasonable grounds to connect the accused with the alleged offence, the Courts are always slow to accede to the request of bail.

Grant of bail to an accused required in a cognizable and non-bailable offence prior to his arrest is an extraordinary judicial intervention in an ongoing or imminent investigative process

Such clogs the very mechanics of State authority to investigate and prosecute violations of law designated as crimes

To prevent arrest of an accused where it is so required by law is a measure with far reaching consequences that may include loss or disappearance of evidence

Statute does not contemplate such a remedy and it was judicially advented way back in the year 1949 in the case of 'Hidayat Ullah Khan v. The Crown' [PLD 1949 Lahore 21] with purposes sacrosanct and noble, essentially to provide judicial refuge to the innocent and the vulnerable from the rigors of abuse of process of law; to protect human dignity and honour from the humiliation of arrest intended for designs sinister and oblique

Remedy oriented in equity cannot be invoked in every run of the mill case, prima facie supported by material and evidence, constituting a non-bailable/cognizable offence, warranting arrest, an inherent attribute of the dynamics of Criminal Justice System with a deterrent impact: it is certainly not a substitute for post-arrest bail.

Concession of pre-arrest bail could not be allowed to an accused person, unless the court was satisfied with the seriousness of the accused person's assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police.

Pre-arrest bail is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every run of the mill criminal case as it seriously hampers the course of investigation.

Concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to an accused person unless the Court is satisfied about seriousness of the accused person's assertion regarding his intended arrest being actuated by mala fide on the part of the complainant party or the local police

Grant of the pre-arrest bail is extraordinary remedy in criminal jurisdiction

Such is diversion of usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a protection to the innocent been hounded on trumped up charges through abuse of process of law, therefore accused seeking judicial protection is required to reasonably demonstrate that intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him with taints of mala fide.

Bail can be granted if an accused has a good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in the way while granting bail.

For deciding the bail application the court has to observe the material in a tentative manner and deeper appreciation of evidence is not required.

Such is diversion of ?usual course of law, arrest in cognizable cases; a ? protection to the innocent been hounded on ?trumped up charges through abuse of process of ?law, therefore accused seeking judicial protection ?is required to reasonably demonstrate that ?intended arrest is calculated to humiliate him ?with taints of mala fide.

Pre-arrest ?bail is not a substitute for post-arrest bail in every ?run of the mill criminal case as it seriously ?hampers the course of investigation.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

While granting extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, merits of the case can be touched upon.

Merits of the case can be touched upon while granting pre-arrest bail.

Protection of pre-arrest bail is essentially a judicial protection to protect the innocent, being targeted through abuse of process of law for motives, oblique and sinister; it is neither a substitute for post arrest bail nor a treatment to be extended in every run of the mill criminal case; it is an option that warrants caution in its exercise.

Person accused of a cognizable offence scheduled as non-bailable can only claim protection of anticipatory bail by reasonably demonstrating that his intended arrest was contemplated by considerations that were mala fide and sinister, designed to abuse the process of law.

However, if the facts and circumstances did warrant that the person seeking such relief was falsely implicated and there was likelihood of injustice being done upon him, the Court was under an obligation to come to the rescue of innocent persons while granting the said extraordinary relief.

While granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court.

Normally a person against whom a case has been registered, at the first instance, may approach the original court having jurisdiction i.e. Sessions/Additional Sessions Judge in the matter of bail before arrest, because propriety so demands, but it is not an absolute rule as depending upon the compelling circumstances of each case a person can approach directly to the High Court by invoking its concurrent jurisdiction.