MUHAMMAD HASNAIN alias HASNI vs STATE, etc
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 267 registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal, relating to an allegation of theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including delay in FIR registration and lack of direct evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the application should be allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail confirmed. The court based its decision on the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of direct evidence or specified time of occurrence, reliance on an unverified foot tracker statement, the petitioner joining the investigation without any recovery made from him, and the absence of any misuse of the concession of bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
- Is the statement of a foot tracker without formal qualification sufficient direct evidence to deny bail?
- Does joining the investigation and lack of recovery from the accused support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Hasnain alias Hasni, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 267 dated 4.6.2018 under Section 380, PPC registered at Police Station Jahanian, District Khanewal.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner committed theft.
3. Having heard the arguments addressed at the bar and after perusing the record it transpired that the FIR was registered with unexplained delay of about 19/20 days. No direct evidence is available on the file. No time of occurrence find mentioned in the FIR. The details of extra judicial confession cannot be gathered from the available material. The case of the prosecution rests only on the statement of the foot tracker having no formal qualification/ skill. The petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from his possession. 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 petitioner has joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from him. He has pleaded mala fide and there was no allegation of misuse of ad-interim pre-arrest bail against the petitioner.
4. For the reasons mentioned above the application is allowed and the 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 the learned trial Court / Duty Judge.