Nowsher vs The State
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 54 dated 22.5.2005 registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Fateh Shah, District Vehari, concerning allegations of stealing Sheeshum trees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the FIR, lack of direct eyewitnesses, absence of recovery from his possession, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that since recovery had already been effected from co-accused, there was a delay of ten days in the FIR, no eyewitnesses existed, and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner, laying down that absence of recovery and non-involvement in offences falling within the prohibitory clause, coupled with evidentiary doubts, justify the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a delay of ten days in lodging the FIR without plausible explanation make out a case for further inquiry?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when no recovery has been effected from his possession and the recovery from co-accused has already been completed?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.~- Petitioner- Nausher, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 54, dated 22.5.2005, under Sections 379 and 411, PPC registered at Police Station, Fateh Shah, .District Vehari for the allegations of stealing Sheeshum trees valuing Rs. 15,000/- 16, 000/- from the land of the complainant, hence, this case. lt is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R for which no plausible explanation has been given. There is no eyewitness of the alleged cutting of trees. Further contends that nothing is recovered from the petitioner, thus, provisions of Section 411, P.P.C are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, thus, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail before arrest.
3. Conversely, learned State counsel opposed the bail petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, recovery of alleged 'stolen trees has already been effected from the co-accused, who are in judicial lock-up.
F.I.R was lodged after delay of ten days. There is no eye-witness of the alleged cutting of trees or taking away of the same by the petitioner. Nothing has been recovered from the petitioner's possession. Provisions of Section 411, P.P.C, apparently are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, lt is yet to be determined by the Trial Court as to whether the trees cut by the petitioner and the other co-accused belonged to the complainant, which makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause, of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. ln this view of the matter, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner on 16.12.2005 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.