Hadayatullah V. The State,
Bench: Rozi Khan Barach
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a man named Hadayatullah who was accused of selling a stolen Honda City car to a complainant for Rs. 850,000. The car was later discovered to have been stolen in an earlier case registered in Punjab, and its registration book turned out to be forged. Based on these allegations, a police case (FIR) was registered against him in Quetta under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code dealing with forgery, using forged documents, and cheating.
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail, meaning protection from arrest while the case proceeded, after a lower court had already refused him such protection. The Balochistan High Court examined the timeline of events and noted that the FIR was lodged more than three months after the complainant first approached police, and that police had conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the case. The court found this delay suspicious, suggesting possible bad faith or mala fide intent behind the prosecution.
The judge also noted that the offenses involved did not fall under the "prohibitory clause" of the bail law, meaning they were not among the most serious crimes where bail is harder to get, and that investigation had already been completed. Given these circumstances, the court decided the matter required further inquiry rather than immediate arrest, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the applicant.
This case illustrates how courts weigh delays in filing police complaints and signs of possible misuse of the criminal process when deciding bail applications.
اس مقدمے کا تعلق ہدایت اللہ نامی شخص سے ہے جس پر الزام تھا کہ اس نے ایک مدعی کو 850,000 روپے میں ایک چوری شدہ ہونڈا سٹی گاڑی فروخت کی۔ بعد میں معلوم ہوا کہ یہ گاڑی پنجاب میں درج ایک پرانے مقدمے میں چوری کی گئی تھی، اور اس کی رجسٹریشن بک بھی جعلی نکلی۔ ان الزامات کی بنیاد پر کوئٹہ میں اس کے خلاف جعل سازی، جعلی دستاویزات استعمال کرنے اور دھوکہ دہی سے متعلق پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی دفعات کے تحت ایک پولیس مقدمہ (ایف آئی آر) درج کیا گیا۔
درخواست گزار نے گرفتاری سے پہلے ضمانت کی درخواست دی، یعنی مقدمے کی کارروائی کے دوران گرفتاری سے تحفظ طلب کیا، اس کے بعد کہ ایک ماتحت عدالت پہلے ہی اسے یہ تحفظ دینے سے انکار کر چکی تھی۔ بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ نے واقعات کی ترتیب کا جائزہ لیا اور نوٹ کیا کہ ایف آئی آر مدعی کے پہلی بار پولیس سے رجوع کرنے کے تین ماہ سے زائد عرصے بعد درج کی گئی تھی، اور پولیس نے مقدمہ درج کرنے سے پہل
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2023 P Cr. L J Note 53 [Balochistan] Before Rozi Khan Barrech, J HADAYATULLAH ---Applicant Versus The STATE--- Respondent Criminal (Pre -arrest) Bail Application No. 64 of 2020, decided on 10th August, 2020. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 498--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 471, 468, 463 & 420 ---Using as genuine a forged document, forgery for purpose of cheating, forgery, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property--- Pre-arrest bail, grant of ---Investigation before registration of FIR --- Effect ---Accused was alleged to have sold a stolen vehicle to the complainant and registration book of the vehicle was also found to be forged---First Information Report was lodged with a delay of 3 months ---Police officials, before lodging the FIR, had conducted an enquiry, as such, mala fide was oozing from the facts and circumstances of the case ---Case of accused did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and the investigation had already been completed ---Case of accused was one of further inquiry and the probability of humiliating the accused by belatedly lodging the FIR could not be ruled out ---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed, in circumstances. Abdul Ghafoor Gondal v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 861 and Jamal -ud-Din's case 1983 SCMR 1949 ref. Jamil Ramzan and Jameela Panezai for Applicant. Shumaila Iftikhar, State Counsel. Nemo for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 15th July, 2020. JUDGMENT ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---The petitioner Hayatullah son of Abdullah, after dismissal his pre -arrest bail by the Court below vide order dated 25.02.2020, seeking confirmation of his ad -interim pre -arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2020 in case FIR No.02 of 2020 dated 05.01.2020 registered at Police Station Saddar Quetta under sections 471, 468, 463, 420, P.P.C. with the allegation that the petitioner/applicant sold out a Honda City car bearing registration No. ABT -360, Engine No.L1317- 2627804, Chassis No.NFBGM 154X9R107907, gray in color, model 2010, to the complainant Fareedullah in the worth of Rs.8,50,000/ - on 23.03.2018 in presence of witnesses at Al -Quresh Motor Showrooms. The said vehicle was found stolen in case FIR No.558 of 2016 for an offence under section 381- A, P.P.C. by police of Patoki Punjab and it was further found that the registration book of the said vehicle was also forged.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the available record with their assistance.
3. The alleged car was sold out by the petitioner to complainant on 18.03.2018 and allegedly on 19.09.2019 the said vehicle was taken into possession by the police of Patoki Punjab and it was stated that the said vehicle was stolen from the area of Lahore and it is required in Crime No.558 of 2016. The complainant filed an application before the police for registration of FIR on 16.12.2019 and the FIR was lodged on 05.01.2020 with delay of more than three months. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry. The case is one of further inquiry and the probability of humiliating the applicant and by belatedly lodging of FIR cannot be ruled out at this stage. Reliance is placed in the case titled Abdul Ghafoor Gondal v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 861. The scope of pre -arrest bail was widened in Jamal -ud-Din's case 1983 SCMR 1949 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles for grant of pre -arrest bail and also held that the grant or refusal of bail in criminal cases primarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Before lodging of the FIR the police officials has conducted an inquiry under section 151(2), Cr.P.C., the mala fide from the facts and circumstances of the case which apparently is oozing in the case. The case of the accused/applicant is also does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the investigation has already been completed. In view of the above discussion, ad- interim pre -arrest bail already granted to the applicant/accused is hereby confirmed. SA/162/Bal. Bail confirmed.