MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 194, registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged robbery. The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail after the Court of Session dismissed his initial application. The core legal question was whether, given the circumstances of the case, the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The High Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a significant delay of over one month and that the stolen property had been recovered privately prior to the FIR's registration. Crucially, the complainant and key witnesses appeared in court, affirmed their affidavits, and stated they were satisfied the petitioner was not the perpetrator. The Court held that, as the investigation was complete and the stolen property recovered, incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Furthermore, the witnesses' retraction raised doubts about the bona fide nature of the initial accusation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that where witness statements undermine the prosecution's case and investigation is complete, bail is appropriate.
- Does the delay in lodging an FIR combined with the private recovery of stolen property constitute valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the complainant and key witnesses retract their initial implication of the accused before the Court?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Aslam petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 194 registered at Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif on 22.5.2004 for offences under Sections 392/411, PPC. Earlier on an application submitted by the petitioner for the same relief before the Court of Session, Pakpattan Sharif had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif on 18.10.2004. Hence the present petition before this Court.
2. The FIR in this case had been lodged with a delay of one month and sixteen days and admittedly the stolen motor-cycle had been privately recovered even prior to registration of the FIR. Falak Sher complainant, Allah I3aklish PW and the alleged victim namely Muhammad Amin have all entered appearance before this Court in person today and they have-maintained before this Court in unison that, they now feel satisfied that it was not the present petitioner who had perpetrated the alleged offence: They have owned their affidavits appended with this petition in this regard. The Police Officer present with the record has informed the Court that after investigation a challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. In these circumstances sending the petitioner behind the bars at such a stage is not likely to serve any useful purpose. The stolen motor-cycle already stands recovered from an open field and, thus, nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner's possession at this stage. In view of the stand taken by the complainant and the' other witnesses before this Court today the initial implication of the petitioner in the case in hand on account of ! motives other than bona fide cannot be ruled out of consideration. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 2.11.2004 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of a fresh bail bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty .thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate of Police Station Qaboola Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif within a period of two weeks from today.