ATIF WAHLA vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 741 of 2006, registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad. The petitioner was accused of renting a car from the complainant and subsequently refusing to return it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail given the allegations and his conduct during the proceedings. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously misused the concession of ad-interim pre-arrest bail by failing to appear before the trial court on two occasions, leading to the dismissal of his bail applications for non-prosecution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a clear role attributed to him, and he failed to substantiate any allegations of mala fide against the complainant or the police. The judgment reinforces that the misuse of interim bail concessions and the lack of demonstrated mala fide are valid grounds for denying pre-arrest bail.
- Does the failure to appear before the court during the pendency of a bail application constitute a ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Can a petitioner be granted pre-arrest bail when they have previously misused the concession of ad-interim bail?
- Is a specific role attributed in the F.I.R. sufficient to deny pre-arrest bail in the absence of demonstrated mala fide?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No.741 of 2006, dated 10-8-2006 registered under section 406, P.P.C. At Police Station Peoples Colony, Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with hisbrother Shahzad rented a car from the complainant for a month in presence of witnesses and thereafter, refused to return the same.
Consequently, the aforementioned F.I.R. Was registered against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was false and frivolous and had been got registered on account of mala fide of the complainant with the connivance of the local police; that there was a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained; that the petitioner was previous non-convict and thatnothing had to be recovered from him, as such, he was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner perused the F.I.R. As well as the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was refused. The order reveals that on two previous occasions the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution as he had deliberately failed to appear before the Court when the same was fixed for confirmation, thus the petitioner has misused the concession of adinterim pre- arrest bail granted to him by the learned lower Court. Even on A merits, the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of obtaining the car on rent from the complainant and usurping the same has been attributed to him. The car in question was rented by the petitioner in presence of the witnesses Abdul Majeed and Tahir Shah. Further, the petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fide of the complainant or the police for his alleged false implication in the case.