Mudassar Khursheed v. The State and another — 2025 SCMR 1613

Supreme Court of Pakistan

Mudassar Khursheed v. The State and another
Crl.P.L.A. No. 255-L of 2025
Decided on: 8th April, 2025
Cited as: 2025 SCMR 1613

Principle laid down

If an accused has a good case for post-arrest bail, it is a futile and unjust exercise to refuse pre-arrest bail merely to send him to jail for a few days.

Facts

The petitioner, Mudassar Khursheed, along with his co-accused, was charged under Sections 452, 354, 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly committing house trespass with preparation for hurt, assaulting the complainant’s mother with intent to outrage her modesty, and inflicting a pistol butt blow on the complainant’s head.
The Lahore High Court, while granting pre-arrest bail to co-accused Mubashar alias Mubashar Khursheed Alam and Khursheed Alam, refused the same concession to the petitioner on the ground that a specific role of causing injury was attributed to him. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to an accused when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., and the accused would otherwise become entitled to post-arrest bail if arrested?

Analysis:

The Court observed that the allegations against the petitioner and his co-accused were of similar nature, with no material distinction in their respective roles. On the principle of consistency, the petitioner was entitled to the same treatment as his co-accused who had already been granted pre-arrest bail.

The Court further held that Section 354, P.P.C. is a bailable offence, and offences under Sections 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C. do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception.

Referring to PLD 2017 SC 730 (Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State), the Court reiterated that where an accused has a good case for post-arrest bail, it would be unjustified to dismiss his pre-arrest bail merely to send him to prison for a short duration. Once the court concludes that dismissal of pre-arrest bail would automatically entitle the accused to post-arrest bail, refusal of anticipatory bail becomes a futile exercise.

Reliance was also placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafar Ullah (1986 SCMR 1380) and Khair Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 130), reinforcing the principle that unnecessary incarceration should be avoided when the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that when the offences alleged do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail, pre-arrest bail should not be denied. Consequently, the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 100,000 to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar, Lahore Registry.