RAB NAWAZ and 3 others vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in relation to F.I.R. No. 263/2018, registered at Police Station Jahanian, Khanewal, for an alleged offence of theft under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and allegations of mala fide. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with an unexplained delay of two days, the occurrence happened at night, and the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession without the examination of a foot-tracker. Furthermore, the investigation revealed a financial dispute between the parties, and the petitioners had fully cooperated with the investigation without any recovery being made from them. The Court held that mala fide can be deduced from the facts and circumstances where positive evidence is difficult to produce at the pre-arrest stage. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioners had not misused the concession of ad-interim bail.
- Can mala fide be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of recovery and cooperation with the investigation support the confirmation of pre-arrest bail?
- Is an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor in considering a pre-arrest bail application?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.263/2018 dated 02.06.201 8, registered at Police Station Jahanian, Khanewal, for of fences under Section 380, P .P.C.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that of committing theft.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it transpired that the F.I.R. was registered with unexplained delay of two days. The occurrence took place at odd hours of night. The foot-tracker was not examined during the investigation under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and the case of the prosecution is totally based on circumstantial evidence/extra-judicial confession. The Investigating Agency concluded that Rs.6,00,000/- of the accused party was outstanding against the complainant party received for sending the accused abroad and that the complainant party itself handed over the stolen articles/cows to the petitioners. They had joined the investigation and nothing was recovered from them. It is difficult for the accused to prove the element of mala fide, at this stage, through positive/solid evide nce/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. Mala fide was also asserted in the petition and 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 petitioners is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/ duty Judge.