ABDUL RAZZAQ alias Kora vs STATE, etc
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shaher Sultan, Muzaffargarh, relating to allegations of theft. Upon hearing the parties and examining the record, the court observed that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately one month in lodging the First Information Report. Furthermore, no direct evidence was available against the petitioner, the prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, the statement of the foot tracker was not recorded during investigation, and no recovery was effected from the petitioner. Additionally, a co-accused had already been admitted to post-arrest bail, and the petitioner had successfully demonstrated circumstances giving rise to an inference of mala fide, without any allegation of misuse of the concession of ad-interim bail. Consequently, the court accepted the application and confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of fresh surety bonds.
- Whether inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR constitutes a ground for pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence without recovery from the accused?
- Whether the element of mala fide can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Abdul Razzaq alias Kora, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 67/2018 dated 6.2.2018, under Sections 457, 380, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Shaher Sultan, Muzaffargarh.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner alongwith his co-accused committed theft.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that there was inordinate/ unexplained delay of about one month in lodging the F.I.R. No direct evidence was available with the complainant. The case of prosecution entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The statement of foot tracker was also not recorded during the investigation. No recovery was effected from the petitioner by the Investigating Agency. One of his co-accused was admitted to post-arrest bail. It is difficult for the accused to prove the element of mala fide, at this stage, through positive/solid evidence/material, therefore, the same was to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and that where events or hints to such effect are available, same would validly constitute the element of mala fide. The petitioner pleaded mala fide in his application. There was no allegation of the misuse of ad - interim pre-arrest bail.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/duty judge.