MUHAMMAD USMAN vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed by the petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 79/2010 registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dalwaryam, District Pakpattan, regarding the theft and illegal cutting of trees belonging to the Forest Department. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the accused is nominated with a specific role, recovery of stolen wood has been made from his possession, and he has admitted to the offence and deposited compensation for the loss. The Lahore High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief that cannot be extended to an accused who is nominated with a specific role, caught with recovered stolen property, and has admitted to committing the offence. The court laid down the principle that the payment of compensation or making good the financial loss to the complainant does not automatically entitle an accused involved in theft to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail, especially upon his own admission of guilt.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to an accused who admits to the commission of theft and illegal cutting of forest trees?
- Does the payment of compensation and redressing of the complainant's grievance automatically entitle an accused to confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered a heinous crime barring the grant of extraordinary pre-arrest relief when recovery is made from the accused?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 79/2010 dated 04.06.2010, for the offences under Section 379, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Dalwaryam, Tehsil and District Pakpattan.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed the theft and cut trees from the forest owned by the Forest Department and wood valuing Rs, 75,550/- was also recovered from the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the petitioner is guilty of illegal cutting of trees from the forest but 'he has paid the compensation of wood to the Forest Department, therefore, he has made good the loss of Forest Department and have redressed the grievance of the complainant, therefore, ad interim bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab has vehemently opposed this bail application.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role that he has committed the theft of trees owned by the Forest. Department by cutting the same who was caught and wood amounting to Rs, 75,550/- was recovered from his possession. Further, the allegation of theft is corroborated by the admission of the petitioner that he has committed the offence and deposited the compensation on account of loss caused to the Forest Department. The petitioner is accused under Section 379, P.P.C. which is a heinous crime. The bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which cannot be extended to a thief particularly when he himself has admitted that he has committed the offence.
In the circumstances, the ad interim bail before arrest granted to the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2010 is recalled.