TASADIQ HUSSAIN vs NOUMAN SAEED and 2 others
This criminal petition was filed by the complainant seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to Respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, in connection with an F.I.R. registered for theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. 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 High Court observed that while some articles were recovered from the co-accused and the respondents, the recovery of the remaining stolen property was still pending. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy that should not be granted in circumstances where the accused are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific roles and where the investigation into the recovery of stolen property is incomplete. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, recalling the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and cancelling the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the respondents.
- Is pre-arrest bail an appropriate remedy where the recovery of stolen property is still pending?
- Can bail before arrest be cancelled if the accused are nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role and the investigation is ongoing?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner/ complainant seeks cancellation of bail of Respondents No, 1 & 2 in case F.I.R. 'No, 103/10, dated 28.04.2010, for the offence under Section 379, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Mochi Gate, Lahore.
2. The precise allegation against the Respondents No, 1 and 2 are that Respondents No, 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 No, 1 and 2/accused vide order dated 10.06.2010.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondents No, 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 No, 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 10.06.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Lahore, whereby the Respondents No, 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 No, 1 & 2 has vehemently opposed the petition and has contended the Respondents N6. 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 No, 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 No, 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 No, 1 & 2, however, the rest of the stolen articles are yet to be recovered from Respondents No, 1 & 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 No, 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 10.06.2010, whereby the Respondents No, 1 & 2 were granted bail before arrest, is recalled.