SHAFQAT and 4 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.48 of 2004 registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Raiwind Saddar, Kasur, relating to the alleged theft of a tree and criminal intimidation. The core legal question was whether the petitioners made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail because they had already joined the investigation, the alleged stolen tree had been recovered from the spot rather than from the physical possession of the petitioners, and nothing further remained to be recovered from them. Consequently, the court accepted the bail application and confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of fresh bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has joined the investigation and no further recovery is required from their possession, pre-arrest bail may be confirmed.
- Are petitioners entitled to pre-arrest bail when they have already joined the investigation and no further recovery is required from them?
- Does the recovery of the alleged stolen property from the spot rather than from the physical possession of the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.48 of 2004 registered on 6-2-2004 in Police Station Raiwind Saddar, Kasur under section 379, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Was lodged by Ashiq Ali complainant alleging that the accused had cut a tree from his land and had committed theft of the same. On the night of 2-2-2004, at 11/12 mid-night, when he admonished the said accused persons, they hurled abuses on him and rushed towards him with hatchets in their hands in order to kill him.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. At the time of arguments on this petition, the S.I./Investigating Officer present in the Court admitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and that the alleged stolen tree had been recovered from the place of occurrence. He has submitted that the place of occurrence was owned by the complainant but it was under the graveyard. In any away, the tree in question is stated to have been found from the spot and not from the possession of the petitioners. It has been admitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and that .Nothing else is now to be recovered from them. The learned counsel for the petitioners has asserted that the petitioners were involved in this case with a mala fide intention and with ulterior motives.
5. Under the circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitledto the concession of bail.
Therefore, this bail application is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000, with one surety each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days.