MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an allegation of theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in view of the circumstances of the case, including delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the 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 of twenty-six days in registering the FIR, the reliance of the prosecution on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession without direct or tangible evidence, the failure to disclose the source of information, the lack of recovery from the petitioner, and the inference of mala fide from the facts and circumstances, coupled with the petitioner joining the investigation without misusing the concession of bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay?
- Is an extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence without direct tangible evidence sufficient ground to deny pre-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of recovery from the accused during investigation supports the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Imran, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No, 459 dated 23.12.2018 at Police Station Galey W al, District Lodhran for of fence under Section 380, PPC.
2. Allegedly , the petitioner committed theft.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it was observed that the FIR was registered with unexplained delay of about twenty six days. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and no direct/tangible evidence is available on the record. The complainant has not disclosed the source of his information. At the most, the evidence collected during the investigation against the petitioner was that of extra-judicial confes sion. It is difficult for the accused to prove mala fide through some cogent and 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 his possession. 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 petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-with the surety 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.