Saif Ullah vs Manzoor And 2 Other
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, in a case involving theft. The core legal question was whether the lower court exercised its discretion correctly in granting extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite the respondents being nominated in the F.I.R. and identified as involved during the investigation. The High Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy requiring exceptional circumstances, which were absent in this case. The Court noted that the respondents were specifically named in the F.I.R. with a clear role, and the recovery of stolen articles was still pending. Finding that the lower court failed to consider these critical aspects, the High Court allowed the petition, recalled the pre-arrest bail, and ordered the respondents to be taken into custody. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail should not be granted routinely, especially when the accused are implicated in the investigation and recovery is outstanding.
- Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that requires the existence of extraordinary circumstances?
- Does the failure of a lower court to consider the involvement of the accused in the investigation and the need for recovery of stolen property justify the cancellation of pre-arrest bail?
- Can bail be cancelled if the accused were nominated in the F.I.R. and found involved during the investigation?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. - Saif Ullah petitioner is the complainant of case F.I.R. No. 861/2010, dated 29.12.2010 offence under Section 380, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sadar Chiniot with the allegations that respondent's Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith two unknown persons committed theft in the shop of Muhammad Ali, brother-in-law of the petitioner. Through this petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.1.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot whereby respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were allowed bail before arrest.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that there was absolutely no mala fide on the part of the complainant of the case and this has not been considered in the bail granting order; that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are named in the F.I.R. With specific role of committing theft in the shop of Muhammad Ali, brother-in-law of the complainant; that recovery of the stolen articles is yet to be effected; that both the respondents were found involved during the course of investigation.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 opposes this petition for cancellation of bail on the grounds that there is a delay of two days in the registration of the F.I.R.; that the story of theft mentioned in the F.I.R. Is not probable and as a matter of fact no theft was committed in the shop; that even no lock, which as per F.I.R. Was broken, was taken into possession during the course of investigation; that both the respondents have no previous record of such like nature; that the offence alleged against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure and bail granting order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot, does not call for any interference.
4. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor while adopting arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner also supports this petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are nominated in the F.I.R. They have been found involved during the course of investigation. Recovery of the stolen articles is yet to be effected from them. Pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, which requires extraordinary circumstances. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot while granting pre-arrest bail has not taken into consideration these important aspects of the matter, therefore, this petition is allowed and the pre-. Arrest bail allowed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot vide order dated 20.1.2011 is hereby recalled. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are present in the Court. They be taken into custody.