Muhammad Kaleem vs The State & another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of FIR No. 22 registered under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Umar-Kot, District Rajanpur. The core legal question concerned whether pre-arrest bail could be confirmed where the accused was implicated solely on the basis of spy information, suspicion, and previous history, notwithstanding a suspended sentence in a previous case. The Lahore High Court held that suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot take the place of legal proof, and a previous conviction whose sentence has been suspended has no bearing on the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, especially when the prosecution lacks any direct evidence. The court laid down the principle that implication based merely on suspicion and malafide intent warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail, as an appeal or revision against a conviction is a continuation of the trial.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when an accused is implicated solely on the basis of spy information and suspicion?
- Does a previous conviction whose sentence has been suspended by the High Court affect the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a subsequent case?
- Can suspicion take the place of legal proof in criminal proceedings?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 462-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 462-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through instant petition under Section 498 Cr.P.C. petitioner Muhammad Kaleem has sought the premium of bail before arrest in case FIR No.22, dated 09.02.2013, in respect of offences under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379 & 411 PPC registered at Police Station Umar-Kot, District Rajanpur.
2. The brief allegation, as contained in the crime report, is that on 06.02.2013 at 11:00 a.m. Supervisor Control Staff Hamid Mehmood had furnished information regarding the droppage of pressure in PARCO pipeline Burji No.500/50 (Section-III) at 3:00 a.m. that some unknown accused persons, after connecting iron clump with main pipeline, had stolen oil in six canes measuring 30-liters each, which were concealed by them at the distance of 500-meter from the said point. The matter was reported to the police who had visited the spot, summoned Mirza Muhammad Ijaz, Engineer and changed the said iron clump with safety clump. It was alleged that as per reliable sources the petitioner alongwith four nominated and 5/6 unknown accused persons were involved in the said theft. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have perused the record.
4. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of spy information and on suspicion. On Court's query, Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State after page-to-page search remained fail to show any piece of evidence regarding involvement of the petitioner in this case and has gracefully conceded that the prosecution has no piece of evidence against the petitioner except suspicion because of his previous history of such like cases. The suspicion how much strong is always suspicion, which cannot take the place of legal proof. It has been pointed out that the petitioner was previously convicted in case FIR No.214 dated 29.10.2012, in respect of offences under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379 & 411 PPC registered at Police Station Umar- Kot, District Rajanpur and sentenced to the imprisonment of seven years by the learned Magistrate Section-30, Rajanpur vide judgment dated 02.11.2016, which was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 09.02.2017. To meet with the point, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the attested photocopy of Crl.Misc.No.3/2017 in Crl.Rev.No.39/2017 wherein the sentence of the petitioner has already been suspended by this Court on 19.12.2017 and the main criminal revision against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is still pending adjudication. In the given circumstances, the previous conviction and sentence has no bearing upon confirmation of the bail before arrest of the petitioner especially when he is otherwise entitled for the said relief as the appeal/revision against conviction is the continuation of the trial. The implication of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence seems to be tainted with malafide intention and some ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. The insistence of the investigating agency upon arrest of the petitioner is apparently unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.