SALEEM AKRAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Saleem Akram, in connection with F.I.R. No. 179/2004, registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged theft of a rotavator. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail given the allegations of mala fides and the existence of a prior civil dispute between the parties. The Court observed that the petitioner provided documentary evidence supporting the existence of a prior dispute over a tractor transaction between the complainant and the petitioner's grandfather, suggesting the criminal case was a counter-blast to avoid payment obligations. The Court held that the petitioner had successfully established a case for pre-arrest bail, noting that the recovery of the stolen item had already been effected and further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that where a criminal case appears to be a result of mala fides arising from civil disputes, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when a criminal case appears to be a counter-blast to a civil dispute?
- Does the recovery of stolen property influence the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can a court confirm interim bail if the prosecution's case is motivated by mala fides?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,179 dated 10-9-2004 under sections 379/411, P.P.C., Police, Station, Thingi, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution story is that on the fateful day, the rotavator of the complainant worth Rs,70,000 was stolen from his Dera. The complainant along with Muhammad Iqbal went in search and when they reached the Dera of the petitioner, with some hesitation it was told by Saleem Akram petitioner he and Saleem had committed the theft and thereafter, had put the rotavator with one Abdul Sattar. The petitioner is further alleged to have got recovered the rotavator from the said Dera.
3. Learned counsel contends that in fact there was some dispute between the parties with regard to a Tractor which was purchased by petitioner's grand-father from the complainant. A civil suit had also been filed by petitioner's grand-father which however, was patched up and complainant agreed to give his rotatvator as well as some cash to him for return of the Tractor. According to the learned counsel the tractor was delivered back to the complainant who himself handed over the said rotavator to the petitioner's grand-father and when he raised demand of the remaining amount the instant false case was got registered as a counter blast.
4. Bail opposed by the learned State counsel.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner find support from documents placed on record. The copy of plaint of the earlier suit also establishes the fact that parties had a dispute over some tractor. In this regard a copy of the agreement has also been produced. With this back ground, registration of instant case against the petitioner can be result of mala fides on the part of the complainant to avoid payment of the remaining amount to his grand-father in lieu of tractor. Even otherwise, recovery of alleged stolen rotavator has been effected and sending the petitioner to lock up would not serve any better purpose to the prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case entitling him to pre-arrest bail. Therefore, the interim bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 13-10-2004 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Ilaqa Magistrate.