Farid And Another vs The State
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Farid and Aslam seeking pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 149 registered under sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dalwaryam, District Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail where the alleged theft is unwitnessed, recovery of stolen property is private and unassociated with any specific person, and the prosecution lacks direct or indirect evidence connecting the petitioners to the crime. The court held that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that the petitioners' implication appeared to stem from mala fide, thereby confirming the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that suspicion, however strong, can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when an alleged theft remains unwitnessed and lacks direct or indirect evidence against the accused?
- Can suspicion serve as a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case?
- Whether recovery of stolen property from a general location rather than a specific person warrants confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J- Through this petition Farid and Aslam petitioners have sought pre- arrest bail in the case FIR No. 149 registered at Police Station Dalwaryam, District Pakpattan Sharif on 21.11.2001 for offences under sections 379 and 411, PPC. Previous an application submitted by the petitioners for the same relief before the Court of Sessions, Pakpattan Sharif had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Pakpattan Sharif vide order dated 22.12.2001.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that as far as the offence under section 379, PPC is concerned the alleged theft in question had admittedly remained unwitnessed and so far there is no direct or indirect evidence available on the record pointing towards the petitioners' involvement in the said theft. As regards the offence under section 411, PPC it has been noticed that the recovery in this regard was admittedly a private recovery and the stolen material was not recovered from any specific person but the same had allegedly been recovered from a Dera belonging to one Humayun Khaitran. The record of investigation of this case shows that the prosecution is presently not possessed of any material whatsoever to show as to on what basis the present petitioners are being suspected of committing the alleged theft or in respect of their involvement regarding handling of the stolen property, In these circumstances the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that implication of the present petitioners in this case is an outcome of mala fide on the part of the complainant party as well as the local police may not be without any foundation or substance, lt is settled law that suspicion howsoever strong can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the present petitioners by this Court on 14.2.2002 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of fresh bail bonds by the petitioners in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate of Police Station Dalwaryam, District Pakpattan Sharif. Ad-interim pre-arrest.