Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 3392 = 2021 PLD 892
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. P. No. 39-L of 2021, decided on 13th August, 2021. (Against the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, in Crl. Misc. No.67963-B of 2020)
Presented By: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Amin-ud-Din Khan, JJ

INAM ULLAH---Petitioner

VERSUS

The STATE and others---Respondents

Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: 498

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 498---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Pre-arrest bail---Second prearrest bail petition filed after withdrawal of the first pre-arrest bail petition without satisfactory explanation for withdrawing the earlier petition---Maintainability---In case the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation for his withdrawal of the earlier pre-arrest bail petition and the need for filing the fresh one, his second or successive pre-arrest bail petition shall not be maintainable. Filing a pre-arrest bail petition, enjoying the concession of ad interim bail granted therein and then simply withdrawing the petition in order to file another one after sometime and availing the same benefit of ad interim bail once again, in the absence of any lawful explanation or justification, was a sheer abuse of the process of the court. Muhammad Sadiq v. State 2015 SCMR 1394 ref. While the accused could approach the same court with a fresh pre-arrest bail petition if the earlier one had been withdrawn without advancing arguments on merits, the court must be watchful that the successive petition was not readily entertained or the concession of ad interim bail granted to the accused, unless he furnished satisfactory explanation for withdrawal of the first petition and filing of the second one; otherwise, an unscrupulous accused could abuse the process of court for ulterior purposes. Therefore, the accused must be required by the court to furnish satisfactory explanation for withdrawing the first pre-arrest bail petition at the time of entertaining the second pre-arrest bail petition. Unless there was satisfactory explanation, the second bail petition should not be entertained, because otherwise the accused would have an unchecked license to abuse the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail by misusing the court-process, and hoodwink the police to prolong the investigation. [p. 894] B While the accused had access to courts to seek pre-arrest bail, even successively for justifiable reasons, he could not be permitted to abuse the concession of ad interim bail to stall the investigation and play hide and seek with the criminal justice system.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register