Mst. NASEER BIBI and another vs STATE and another
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 466 dated 16.10.2018 registered under Sections 379 and 440 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chouhara, District Layyah, regarding allegations of mischief and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of corroborative evidence, unexplained delay in reporting, and lack of recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the application should be allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed, noting an unexplained delay of two days in reporting the incident, no eyewitnesses, general allegations, no recovery from the petitioners, minimal estimated cost of the stolen property, and no previous criminal record indicating first-offender status and potential mala fide. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the allegations are general, recovery has not been effected, the accused have joined investigation, and mala fide can be inferred from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when there is an unexplained delay in reporting the incident and no eyewitnesses?
- Is bail appropriate where the allegations are general in nature and no recovery has been effected from the accused?
- How is mala fide deduced in matters relating to pre-arrest bail applications?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioners, namely , Mst. Naseer Bibi and Mst. Naseem Akhtar seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 466 dated 16.10.2018 under Sections 379, 440, PPC registered at Police Station Chouhara, District Layyah.
2. Allegedly , the petitioners committed mischief as well a theft.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was noticed that there was unexplained delay of two days in reporting the incident. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The allegation is general in nature and it is not discernible from the record if the theft was committed by the petitioners. They have joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from them, even estimated cost of the stolen crop (millet) is mentioned as Rs,5000/- It is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/material and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners have got no previous record and thus, would be believed as first offender . Mala fide was asserted in the petition and there was no allegation of misuse of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.