MUHAMMAD NASEER vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 406, and 462-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the alleged theft of sui gas at a factory. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a petty employee and shift incharge at the factory rather than its owner, was entitled to post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court held that where an accused is merely a petty employee without ownership or direct nexus to the alleged crime, and where the prosecution exhibits unexplained delay in lodging the crime report, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that subordinate employees who have no proprietary interest in premises where economic or utility offenses occur are ordinarily entitled to bail when investigation is complete and their further detention serves no useful purpose.
- Whether a petty employee working at a factory where gas theft is committed is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the crime report make the case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is further detention of an accused justified when investigation is complete and police no longer require the accused for investigation?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 462-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---By means of instant petition, the petitioner seeks his post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,751, dated 29-8-2013, offence under sections 420, 406 and 462-C, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, City Raiwind, Lahore.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, as per contents of the crime report is that on 27-8-2013 at 5-30 p.m.
Raid was conducted by the complainant on the factory being run under the name and style of Be- Be Jan Colours Ltd. Processing Home, Textile Mills, owned by Mian Faisal Ehsan Elahi, where sui gas was being stolen.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been roped in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with ulterior motives.
It is argued that there is delay of one day in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. Learned counsel submits that Mian Faisal Ehsan Elahi, owner of the factory, who is main culprit, is on pre-arrest bail. Adds that the petitioner, who was just a petty employee, Shift Incharge, in the factory was earning his livelihood, has no nexus with the crime alleged. It is argued that the case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry falling within, the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this petition with vehemence. It is argued that the petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is sufficiently connected with the commission of the offence alleged against him. Moreover, he was found guilty during the course of investigation. In such circumstances, it is argued that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra has been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the F.LR., however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances that whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief sought for is made out or not. There is delay of one day in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. The petitioner is not owner of the factory where the theft of gas had been committed; rather he was a petty employee, serving over there for earning his livelihood. Prima facie, he was having no nexus with the crime alleged. Such circumstances make the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail. The culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence.
7. In sequel to what has been discussed above, the instant petition is accepted as a consequence whereof, the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.