TASSADAQ HUSSAIN vs NOUMAN SAEED and 2 others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in a case involving theft. The core legal question was whether the respondents were entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations of theft and the fact that a significant portion of the stolen valuables remained unrecovered. The petitioner argued that the lower court erred in granting bail, as the investigation was ongoing and recovery of the stolen property was still pending. The respondents contended they were innocent and had joined the investigation. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court observed that the respondents were specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a distinct role, and that the recovery of the stolen articles was incomplete. The Court held that, under these circumstances, the respondents were not entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and recalled the order granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, emphasizing that bail before arrest is an extraordinary remedy not suited for cases where recovery is pending.
- Is pre-arrest bail an appropriate remedy when recovery of stolen property is still pending?
- Can bail before arrest be cancelled if the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner/complainant seeks cancellation of bail of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in Case F.I.R. No,103 of 2010, dated 28-4-2010, for the offence under section 379, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. The precise allegations against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 in league with Muhammad Farooq have stolen the valuables worth Rs, 14,00,000 from the store of the complainant. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has granted bail before arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2/accused vide order dated 10-6-2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have stolen the valuables worth Rs,14,00,000 from the store of the complainant, the recovery of which is yet to be effected but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has granted bail before arrest to respondents Nos.1 and 2 which was an extraordinary relief and could not be granted to the accused persons from whom some stolen articles have been recovered while the recovery of rest of articles is yet to be effected, therefore, the petition be allowed and the order dated 10-6-2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been granted bail before arrest, be recalled.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab has fully supported the application for cancellation of bail.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are innocent persons who have not committed any offence, rather they have informed the complainant about the theft from his store. Further , contends that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have joined the police investigation and they are no more required by the police for investigation, therefore, the petition for cancellation of bail be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. According to the contents of the F.I.R., the charge against respondents Nos.1 and 2 and their co- accused Muhammad Farooq is that they have stolen valuable articles worth Rs,14,00,000 from the store of the complainant. During the investigation, some stolen articles were recovered from Muhammad Farooq, a co-accused and respondents Nos.1 and 2, however, the rest of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered from respondents Nos.1 and 2 who have been nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role. The bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief for which the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled in the circumstances of the case.
8. The outcome of the above discussion is that the petition is allowed, the order dated 10-6-2010, whereby the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were granted bail before arrest, is recalled.