MUHAMMAD NAWAZ (Original name Rab Nawaz) and 2 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought confirmation of their pre-arrest bail granted in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 67 registered under sections 380 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged theft of dowry articles. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving delayed reporting, prior civil litigation between close relatives, and offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the criminal prosecution appeared tainted with ulterior motives due to longstanding civil litigation and strained relations, making the allegations improbable and warranting further inquiry. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and prosecution appears motivated by civil disputes among close relatives, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed to prevent unjustified harassment and disrespect.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the criminal case arises from longstanding civil litigation between close relatives?
- Does an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is a criminal prosecution initiated after an inordinate delay without adequate explanation considered a ground for further inquiry under bail jurisprudence?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Petitioners seek confirmation of interim bail before arrest granted by this Court on 17-5-2007, in case against him vide F,I.R. No.67 dated 29-3-2007 under sections 380, and 506, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Bhera, District Sargodha.
2. Gravamen of the charge, as it appears from the F.I.R., registered under the orders of this Court dated 19-3-2007 in Writ Petition No.3362 of 2005, is that complainant had kept certain dowry articles of his sister Mst. Parween Akhtar in the house of his maternal relations which was usurped/stolen by the petitioners by breaking open the room. Application of the complainant under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. Was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,/Ex- Officio justice of peace on 8-1-2005 whereafter direction to register the criminal case was issued by this Court, as noted above.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the police record. Petitioners are real maternal uncles of the complainant Sarfraz Ahmad and parties are involved in civil litigation about the estate left by Sher Muhammad son of Ahmad Yar, father of the petitioners, since 5-10-2002. Petitioners' mother Mst. Bharai who was living with the petitioners and was maternal grandmother of the complainant, breathed her last on 20-5-1999. It could not be denied by the learned counsel for the. Complainant that parties are facing different civil litigations, which starred after death of Mst. Bharai, and they are not on speaking terms. In view of this, it is highly improbable that the complainant who is living separately, could enter house of the petitioners to put dowry articles in one of the rooms, under his lock and key. According to the D.S.P.
(Investigations) petitioners are guilty of the offence, as they were said to have committed offence under section 406, P.P.C. According to the opinion of the Investigating Officer the dowry articles of Mst. Parween Akhtar were placed by the complainant in the house of the petitioners, earlier to death of Mst. Bharai, which was misappropriated. Even this stance negatively reflected on the registration of the case because there is no explanation to its report to the police after lapse of number of decades. All these matters require further inquiry/probe. Parties are close blood relations and pending civil litigations between them, criminal prosecution of the petitioners, without any eye-witness or details of the articles removed, appears to be tainted, with ulterior motives.
Offences charged though are remotely attracted yet those are not covered by prohibitory clause of .Section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioners hail from respectable family and their arrest in a case alike the one in hand, would expose them to disrespect in the eyes of their relations and public-at-large.
Since case was A registered under the order of this Court, cognizance of instant petition was directly taken in light of the judgment in the case of Nusrat Parween v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 156).
4. For the reasons noted above, petitioners have made out a case for confirmation of bail granted by this Court on 17-5-2007. Order accordingly, Petitioners will, however, join the police investigation, as and when required. Disposed of.