MUHAMMAD SAEED vs MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 4 others
This criminal petition was filed under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge in respect of a case registered under sections 380, 408, 427, 447, 457, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Vahowa, District D.G. Khan. The core legal question revolved around whether the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents was justified given the allegations of theft and attempted forcible occupation of property. The Lahore High Court held that since a civil dispute existed between the parties over the property for several years and the matter required further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, the lower court committed no error in granting pre-arrest bail. The court laid down the principle that pre-arrest bail cannot be refused merely because recovery of allegedly stolen articles is pending, particularly when the prosecution story is doubtful and stems from a pre-existing civil litigation.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled when a dispute between the parties is primarily of a civil nature?
- Does the mere fact that recovery of stolen articles is yet to be effected bar the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case warrant further inquiry into the guilt of the accused for the purpose of bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 408, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 511, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Saeed, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.1 to 4 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taunsa, vide his order dated 28-4-2003 in Case F.I.R. No.27 dated 16-4-2003 under sections 380/ 408/427/447/457/511, P.
P. C . Registered with Police Station, Vahowa, District, D.G. Khan.
2. He has alleged therein that about few days prior to the same, these respondents along with their co-accused Muhammad Riaz had attempted to forcibly occupy his Haveli and they had also committed the theft of his household articles after breaking upon the lock of the same.
3. These respondents applied for pre-arrest bail. The same was extended to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taunsa vide his aforesaid order.
4. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioner has brought the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For cancellation of their bail.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that the facts and circumstances of the case did not justify the grant of such extra relief to them particularly when the. Recovery of stolen articles was to be effected from them.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from his side and perused the copies of record annexed to the petition.
7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while dealing with the question of grant or otherwise of pre-arrest bail to these respondents has observed that there is dispute between the parties of civil nature and the case has been got registered by him (petitioner) against them due to the same.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show me anything as against the same.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that the parties are in litigation for the last about 2/3 years in respect of the property and these respondents are living over there and the said land is on lease with the petitioner and the same belongs to the State. This position definitely required further inquiry into their guilt. So, they were entitled to the relief prayed for in these circumstances of the case. They therefore, could not be refused the same merely for the reason that the recovery of allegedly stolen articles is to be effected from them particularly when it was found that such story is not above doubt. Hence, I find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all erred in extending them the said relief. Thus no case for cancellation of their bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.
8. However, it is made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the trial Court in any manner.