Ehsan Ullah Vs The State etc

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Misc. No.53729-B of 2026

Ehsan Ullah vs. The State, etc

S.No. of Date of Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties order/ order/ or counsel, where necessary. proceedings proceedings

23.09.2026 Ch. Muhammad Arfan Afzal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Irfan Naeem Awan, DPG with Ramzan ASI Complainant in person.

Ehsan Ullah (petitioner) seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R No.650/26 dated 18.07.2026 for offences under sections 379, 411 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Mochiwala District Jhang.

2.As per the contents of the F.I.R., the prosecution story precisely is that during the intervening night of 03.10.2025, the petitioner along with 02-nominated and 2/3 unknown accomplices allegedly stole a white-and-black calf, worth Rs.80,000/-, from the complainant’s house. The complainant made efforts to trace the calf and eventually suspected the petitioner and others. Upon inquiry, they allegedly admitted the occurrence and promised to return the stolen property but ultimately refused.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.It is straightaway pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Ghulam Abbas, to whom a similar role has been attributed, has already been granted post arrest bail by the learned Trial Court and the said order has not been challenged before any competent forum. In such like situation, when it is admitted fact that the role ascribed to the petitioner cannot be distinguished from the aforesaid co-accused having been “NAEEM QADIR SHEIKH and another v. THE STATE and others” (2022 SCMR 2068)

granted post-arrest bail by the court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged, any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would become entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. 2It is now established that while granting pre-arrest bail, the merits of the case can be touched upon by the Court. 3In such view of the matter, if petitioner is denied the extra ordinary concession of pre arrest bail, he would nonetheless be entitled to post arrest bail, considering the nature and extent of the punishment prescribed for the offences with which he stands charged.

Where an accused has a strong case for post arrest bail, he ought not to be incarcerated merely to satisfy the complainant’s desire to have him arrested for a few days, by denying pre arrest bail. In these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period rather, it would tantamount to punishment before trial. 5The liberty of a person is precious which must be examined in the constitutional context of liberty, dignity, due process and fair trial.

5.While dealing with the question of whether or not bail is to be granted to an accused, it has to be kept in mind that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. The object is neither punitive nor preventive. Imprisonment of a person and deprivation of his liberty cannot be described other than, being a punishment, unless no less restrictive alternative is available to ensure that the accused will stand his trial when called upon to do so. All “Abdul Rehman vs. The State and others” (2023 SCMR 2081) “Muhammad Akhtar vs. The State and others” (2025 SCMR 1631) “Khalil Ahmed Soomro v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730) “Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 SC 708) “Khawaja Salman RAFIQUE AND ANOTHER V. NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU” (PLD 2020

SC 456)

civilized societies recognize the principle that punishment comes only after conviction, and the presumption of innocence subsist with the accused, till he is handed down punishment after trial. It hardly needs any reiteration that the detention either pre-trial or during trial causes great hardship.

6.In view of the foregoing reasons, this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to pre arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

7.In case the petitioner or anyone else acting on his behalf, in any way, delays the conclusion of the trial, the other side (State or the complainant) shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court. 7

8.Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial court shall be free to decide the case, on merits without being influenced in any manner from the same, strictly in accordance with law.

(Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORTING

JUDGE

This order has been dictated, prepared and signed on the same day.

Rashid Ali*

“Mazhar Hussain vs. The State and others” (2017 SCMR 1936)