MAQSOOD ALI vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioner, Maqsood Ali, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 169 of 2006, initially registered under Section 382 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged theft and damage of underground fibre optical cable. The petitioner's initial application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. Upon review, the High Court noted that the offence under Section 382 had been deleted and replaced with Section 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Investigating Officer reported that no theft occurred, only damage to the cable, and that the petitioner was not present at the scene but was alleged to have abetted the offence. Furthermore, co-accused had already been granted bail, and no recovery was required from the petitioner, who had joined the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner's culpability under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, finding the case fell within the scope of further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the allegation of abetment in a case where the principal offence is under further investigation warrant the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the investigating officer concludes that no theft occurred and the accused was not present at the scene?
- Does the substitution of a penal provision during investigation constitute grounds for further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Maqsood Ali son of Shah Muhammad, the petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,169 of 2006, dated 13-2-2006, registered at Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad, for an offence under section 382, P.P.C.
2. The allegation in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Sultan Mehmood son of Shah Muhammad, the complainant, was that he was a distributor of a company by the name of Media Com Cable Company, a few days before registration of the case they had laid underground Fibre Optical Cable at the cost of Rs,8, 00,000, the petitioner and his co-accused namely Abdul Ghafoor and Liaqat Ali dug out the cable and sold a part thereof causing a loss of Rs, One lac to him.
Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.
3. The petitioner's plea for pre-arrest bail did not find favor with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who dismissed his application vide order, dated 8-3-2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Abdul Maajid, A.S.-I. Police Station Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad.
5. It has been observed that section 382, P.P.C. Has since been deleted and section 440, P.P.C. Has been inserted. According to the Investigating Officer no theft had occurred; however, underground cable had been damaged. A perusal of the police file also reveals that according to the Investigating Officer the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and had only abetted the offence. The two co-accused namely Ishtiaq Ahmad and Abdul Ghafoor who had been arrested have since been released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner as he has joined the investigation. The culpability of the petitioner under section 109, P.P.C. Calls for further probe within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13-3-2006 is hereby confirmed.