Muhammad Ramzan vs State etc
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ramzan, who was accused of theft under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the significant delay in lodging the FIR and the nature of the evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought. The Court observed that the three-month delay in filing the crime report remained unexplained, the occurrence was unseen, and the FIR lacked details regarding the transportation of the stolen property. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that in pre-arrest bail matters, the Court may evaluate the facts and circumstances, including potential mala fides and the merits of the case, to determine if the petitioner's liberty should be protected pending trial.
- Can a court evaluate the merits of a case when deciding on a petition for pre-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained three-month delay in lodging an FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to pre-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to provide details regarding the transportation of allegedly stolen property in an unseen occurrence?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 9, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his pre-iirrcst bail in case FIR No. 302, dated 22.08.2019, offence under Section 379., PPC. registered with Police Station Saddar , Toba Teh Singh.
2. Allegation against the petitioner , in brief as per contents of the crime report is that on 28.05.2019, he committed theft of wheat/sarson crop valuing Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. It is argued that there is delay of three months in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is contended that the story contained in the crime report is against the facts. It is argued that it is an unseen occurrence. Learned counsel submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is. against the facts. Such circumstances, it is contended make the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Adds that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In such circumsta nces it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed this petition. It is argued that the petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation. It is submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the crime report, but this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. There is delay of three months in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is an unseen occurrence. Even no source of transportation of the alleged stolen articles has been mentioned in the crime report. Such circumstances make the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Only meager amount of Rs. 50,000/- is involved in the case in hand. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the malafides from the facts and circumstances of the case, which apparently is oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances discussed above. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Ajmal Khan vs. Liaqat Hayat and another (PLD 1998 SC 97) and Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others vs. The State (2005 SCMR 784). Moreover , keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case Meeran Bux B vs. The State & another (PLJ 1989 S.C. 526), the Court while deciding the pre-arrest bail can touch upon the merits of the case.
The culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence.
7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly by allowing this petition, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.11.2019 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1.00.0007. with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.