Mumtaz Alias Taju vs The State
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 39 registered under Sections 380 and 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, involving allegations of theft of two buffaloes. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail based on the contention of mala fide implication arising from his role as a witness to a disputed marriage. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R., found guilty during the police investigation, and that recoveries were yet to be effected. Furthermore, the court held that the alleged ground for false implication was unsubstantiated as the primary parties to the marriage were not implicated, and no evidence supported the claim of grudge. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is not warranted where an accused is nominated in the F.I.R., implicated during investigation, and required for recoveries, without establishing clear mala fide.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is nominated in the F.I.R. and recoveries are yet to be effected?
- Does acting as a witness to a disputed marriage constitute sufficient ground for establishing mala fide implication in a criminal case?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when found guilty during the police investigation?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J. - Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail through this petition in case F.I.R. No. 39, dated 23.1.2009 registered under Sections 380/457, P.P.C, at Police Station Sadar Arifwala.
2. He is alleged to have committed theft of two buffalos owned by the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case against the petitioner was false. F.I.R, was lodged with an un-explained delay of one month and three days. Mst. Sobia, maternal niece of the complainant had contracted marriage with Saddam Hossain. The petitioner was witness of that Nikah which had taken place against the consent of the complainant and due to this grudge the complainant had falsely implicated the petitioner in this case.
4. It was contended that Niaz brother of the complainant was arrested in this case, however, no recovery was effected from him and he was discharged in - the case.
5. The petition was opposed by the learned complainant and counsel for the learned D.P.G, itwas submitted that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. He has been found guilty during police investigation. Recovery was yet to be affected and no mala fide could be established against- police or against the complainant.
6. The petitioner was inquired as to whether there was any evidence that marriage between Saddam Hussain and Mst. Sobia had taken place against the wishes of parents of Mst. Sobia or the complainant, it was conceded that no such evidence was available. If at all this was the reason of false implication of the petitioner, in the first instance, the complainant would have involved Saddam Hussain in this case. The ground for his false implication in this case, therefore, could not be made out by the petitioner. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., recoveries are yet to be effected. Case for pre-arrest ball, therefore, is not made out, hence, this petition is hereby dismissed.