Scope of pre-arrest Bail |Purpose of Arrest | Criminal Law.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This judgment pertains to a case where Muhammad Waseem was found dead with gunshot wounds near Police Station Saddar Multan. The father of the deceased filed a crime report, and later, through a supplementary statement, named the respondents, Muhammad Attique Khan, Muhammad Ismail, and Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen, as suspects. The motive behind the crime was said to be the deceased's alleged advances towards Haris, the son of Muhammad Attique. The investigation identified the respondents as suspects, who allegedly confessed to their involvement in the crime. The court had granted pre-arrest bail to the respondents, which is now under review.
II. The Prosecution's Argument The prosecution argued that pre-arrest bail is granted under special circumstances and should not have been given in this case. They contended that there was substantial evidence pointing to the respondents' involvement in the crime. They also emphasized that pre-arrest bail is distinct from post-arrest bail, and the criteria for the former are more stringent.
III. Defense of the Impugned Order The respondents defended the order granting them pre-arrest bail, asserting that they were not named in the initial crime report, and their implication was based on a supplementary statement. They argued that there was no incriminating evidence linking them to the crime, and their protection was justified.
IV. Legal Background The judgment discussed the legal background of pre-arrest bail, highlighting that it is an extraordinary relief granted when there is a credible threat of arrest due to malicious intent or an abuse of legal process. It also pointed out the difference between pre-arrest and post-arrest bail, stating that the former is granted to protect individuals from potential wrongful arrest, while the latter is determined based on statutory provisions.
V. Challenging the Impugned Order The court challenged the rationale behind the impugned order granting pre-arrest bail, which seemed to rely on the principle of consistency with other bail orders. The court stressed that pre-arrest bail is based on considerations different from those of post-arrest bail and should only be granted when genuinely necessary.
VI. Considerations for Pre-Arrest Bail The judgment noted that pre-arrest bail should be granted sparingly and only when the anticipated arrest is rooted in malicious intent or abuse of process. It underlined the importance of allowing the prosecution to complete its investigation and the potential for gathering further evidence from custody. It also cited legal precedents to support these considerations.
VII. The Verdict The court found that the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents was not justified, given the circumstances of the case and the evidence against them. The judgment set aside the impugned order and canceled the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents.
VIII. Conclusion The judgment underscores the # stringent conditions for granting pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the importance of allowing the investigative process to proceed and not relying on the anticipated failure of the prosecution's case. It highlights the unique nature of pre-arrest bail and distinguishes it from post-arrest bail.
#bail #pre arrest #498 #497 #crpc #arrest #investigations #legaltrial #trialproceedings #familylawattorney #release #evidence #disclour #trial #jail @_FinologyLegal @LegalEagle @LHCBAR @Qanoondan @