PUNHOON and 3 otherss vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by four applicants accused of theft of 180 litres of oil from an oil field, registered under Crime No. 34 of 2005 at Police Station Husri. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of theft and the applicability of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the F.I.R. was delayed by four days without satisfactory explanation, and that the value of the stolen property appeared to fall below the Nisab threshold required for the application of Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a clear nexus between the applicants and the complainant, suggesting potential mala fide. The key principle laid down is that where the value of stolen property is tentatively assessed below the statutory Nisab, the offence may not attract the prohibitory clause, justifying further inquiry and the grant of bail.
- Does the theft of property valued below the prescribed Nisab attract the provisions of Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
- Can a delayed F.I.R. without satisfactory explanation constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the complainant fails to establish a clear connection between the accused and the alleged offence?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The applicants are involved in the offence of committing theft of 180 litres of oil from Tando Alam Mari Oil Field as per complaint lodged by Incharge Security N.L.C. Hyderabad, and registered vide Crime No,34 of 2005, Police Station Husri.
2. ' In support of application for pre-arrest bail it is contended by learned counsel for the applicants, that the provisions of section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, were not attracted inasmuch as the alleged theft was only in respect of 180 litres of oil in which 19 persons were involved and therefore, the value of the alleged theft was below the amount of Nisab as prescribed undei the law. It is further contended that the 'applicants were falsely implicated as the F.I.R. Does not reveal as to how the complainant came to know the names of accused persons. Last but not the least the F.I.R. Was registered after the delay of four days.
3. ' Learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the grant of bail contending that no malice has been pleaded against the complainant and that the offence under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, fell within the prohibitory clause.
4. ' The contentions raised have been considered and the material placed on record has been perused.
5. ' Admittedly the F.I.R. Is delayed by four days for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the complainant. Prima facie it seems that the offence did not fall within the mischief of section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 in view of the tentative assessm ent of the value of alleged stolen property. Mala fide on the part of the complainant is evident from the fact that the applicants have been named in the F.I.R. Though they are neither employee nor were previously known to the complainant, thus, the case calls for further inquiry.
6. ' In the circumstances, interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants is confirmed.
7. ' It has been pointed out that the challan in the case has not been submitted in the Court. The applicants shall be required to cooperate with the police in the investigation of the case.
8. Disposed of.