MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 144 registered under Section 21(1)(a) of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 at Police Station Saddar Depalpur, District Okara. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, whose employee allegedly supplied the wrong substance causing crop damage, is entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of mens rea and adulteration. The Lahore High Court held that since the investigation revealed the substance was not sub-standard or adulterated, the petitioner did not personally supply the product, and no mens rea was established, the pre-arrest bail previously granted is confirmed. The key principle laid down is that where an investigation reveals no mens rea or adulteration and questions remain as to whether the employee or complainant was at fault, pre-arrest bail is rightly confirmed.
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail under the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance when no mens rea is established?
- Does the supply of a substance by an employee under a misconception warrant confirmation of pre-arrest bail for the employer?
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the investigating officer finds that the provided pesticide is neither sub-standard nor adulterated?
- Section 21(1)(a), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 144 dated 12.04.2005 registered under Sections 21(1)(a) of Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 Amended in 1997, with Police Station, Saddar Depalpur District Okara, on the ground that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of the complainant in order to disgrace and humiliate him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence; the pesticide provided by one Adnan, employee of the petitioner is on account of some mis- conception; The pesticide was not adulterated nor sub-standard.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for confirmation of pre-arrest bail contending that there is no malafide or ulterior motive alleged to the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioner, hence he is not entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that pesticide is neither sub-standard nor adulterated.
He on instruction from the Investigating Officer stated that one Adnan, sales man, provided pesticide to the complainant and there was some mis-understanding between Adnan and the purchaser. No mens rea is available in the present case.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner did not supply the pesticide. The complainant approached his employee. Under some misconception or mis-understanding the complainant was supplied matricide instead of pesticide, which did cause damage to the crops of the complainant. No mens reads available.
7. Prima facie, the petitioner has not committed any offence. Finding of the Investigating Officer that the pesticide provided to the complainant is neither adulterated nor sub standard. At present, from the record available, it cannot be resolved as to whether the complainant or Adnan, employee of the petitioner was at fault.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner's pre-arrest bail already granted to him vide order dated 23.06.2005 is confirmed provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.