If an FIR is registered against a person, the usual legal remedy is to approach the Sessions Court for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 Cr.P.C. Pre-arrest bail means that the accused has not yet been arrested and seeks protection from arrest by arguing that the FIR is false, based on mala fide intentions, or motivated by ulterior motives. The applicant typically pleads that the facts and circumstances of the case justify the grant of bail without arrest.
Ordinarily, accused persons first approach the Sessions Court. However, an important judgment of the Sindh High Court in 2025 clarified that, in certain circumstances, a person may directly approach the High Court for pre-arrest bail.
The judgment is reported as PLD 2025 Sindh 90, authored by Justice Adnan-ul-Haq. In this case, the learned Judge explained that Section 498 Cr.P.C. grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the Sessions Court and the High Court. This means that pre-arrest bail can legally be sought before either forum.
The case involved a woman who lodged an FIR against a person named Shahryar regarding two cheques amounting to Rs. 400,000 in total. Shahryar became aware of the FIR in 2024 and directly approached the High Court for bail. Counsel for the complainant argued that, as a matter of propriety, the accused should first approach the Sessions Court.
While addressing this objection, Justice Adnan-ul-Haq referred to a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as SMR 2004 Page 1167, authored by former Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The Supreme Court observed that although propriety generally requires an accused person to first approach the Sessions Court, once the High Court entertains the matter and grants interim bail, the High Court is competent to decide the case on merits.
This principle highlights that there may be exceptional cases where direct recourse to the High Court becomes justified. For example:
- Where no cognizable offence is made out from the FIR;
- Where the allegations are clearly mala fide;
- Where ulterior motives are apparent on the face of the record;
- Or where there is a genuine apprehension that the accused may be arrested before being able to seek relief from the Sessions Court.
In such situations, the High Court not only has the authority to hear the matter directly but may also grant protective relief where immediate arrest appears likely.
This judgment serves as an important clarification of the law relating to pre-arrest bail and reinforces the constitutional role of the High Court in protecting individuals against abuse of legal process.