ASIF BASHIR vs STATE, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Asif Bashir, who was implicated in an FIR registered under Sections 380 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of Rs. 300,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the FIR suffered from an unexplained 15-day delay, the occurrence was unseen, and no independent witnesses supported the complainant's version. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer confirmed that the petitioner had joined the investigation, which was complete regarding him, and no recoveries were required from his possession. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an occurrence is unseen, there is a significant delay in reporting, and the accused has fully cooperated with the investigation with no further recoveries pending, the continued detention of the accused serves no useful purpose, thereby justifying the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Is pre-arrest bail justified when the FIR is delayed and the occurrence is unseen?
- Does the completion of investigation and lack of required recoveries support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Should pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused has fully joined the investigation?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner namely Muhammad Asif Bashir seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 518/2015 dated 18.07.2015 offence under Section 380, 411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Faisal Town, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner along with co-accused committed theft of Rs. 300,000/- from the house of the complainant.
3. I have heard learned counsel, for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is a delay of 15 days in lodging the FIR, which has not been explained. Admittedly, no one has seen the petitioner while committing the offence. No independent person from the locality supported the version of the complainant. The complainant and the PWs showed their suspicion upon the petitioner but nothing was recovered from his possession, which would be adjudged by the learned trial Court at the time of recording of prosecution evidence, whether the petitioner has committed the offence or not. It is an unseen occurrence. The petitioner is previous non-convict.
I.O. Present before the Court has frankly conceded that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, which is complete to his extent. Nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. No useful purpose would be served by handing over the person of the petitioner for further investigation. Resultant this petition is allowed and pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court concerned.