OBAIDULLAH SAJID vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 973/16 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara, concerning the alleged misappropriation of a laptop and an EVO device. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner has made out a case for the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, given the specific allegations and the requirement for custodial recovery. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that sufficient incriminating material existed on record connecting the petitioner to the offense, that the petitioner failed to establish mala fide on the part of the complainant or the police, and that recovery of the misappropriated items remained outstanding. The key principles laid down are that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy intended for innocent persons and will not be extended where prima facie material connects the accused to the crime and custodial investigation or recovery is required.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused fails to appear and prosecution shows sufficient material connecting him to the offense?
- Is custodial interrogation and recovery of misappropriated property a valid ground to decline pre-arrest bail?
- Whether lack of plausible grounds establishing mala fide of the complainant bars the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 973/16 dated 10.11.2016 under Section 406, PPC, Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara.
2. 2.Today the case has been called number of times and this is second round of calls, but neither petitioner nor his counsel has entered appearance before this Court, in spite of the fact that on the last couple of dates of hearing, the petitioner has given undertaking to give the laptop to the complainant, but today he is not present nor his counsel is available which shows that the petitioner has played fraud with the Court also. This is second pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner and his first petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 500-B of 2017 was dismissed due to non-submission -of surety bonds vide order dated 18.01.2017, therefore, it would not be in the fitness of things to dismiss the instant petition due to non-prosecution rather I intend to decide the same with able assistance of learned Deputy Prosecutor General ant learned counsel for the complainant and also after going through the record and grounds of bail mentioned by the petitioner in this petition.
3. Arguments heard, record and grounds of petition perused. This is bail before arrest which is an extraordinary remedy and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is named in FIR with specific allegations that he misappropriated the laptop and EVO device entrusted by the complainant to him so as to be returned on demand.
3. During investigation, the petitioner has been found involved in this case by the Investigating Officer. The statements of the PWs recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. prima facie involve the present petitioner in this case. No plausible ground is mentioned in this petition, which could establish mala fide of the complainant or the local police for false implication of the petitioner in this case. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary remedy and meant for innocent persons, but there is sufficient material available on the surface of record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The person of the petitioner is also required to the police for the purpose of effecting recovery of misappropriated laptop and EVO device of the complainant, which the petitioner undertook to return to him on the last two dates of hearing. In this regard reliance is placed on case titled as Sarwar Sultan and others vs. The State and another (PLD 1994 SC 133).
4. 4.For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is dismissed.
5. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.01.2017 is recalled.
6. 5.The observations made hereinabove arc tentative in nature and are only confined to the decision of bail petition.