Abdul Ghaffar, etc vs State etc
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a case registered under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of theft committed by servants. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of approximately six months, and the FIR lacked specific details regarding the date, time, or location of the alleged theft. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to clarify the specific items stolen or the specific roles of the petitioners. The Court noted that the underlying dispute appeared to be a matter of rendition of accounts and that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that mala fide could be inferred from the circumstances and that there was no misuse of ad-interim bail, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the lack of specificity in the accusations.
- Does a delay of six months in lodging an FIR without explanation constitute a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is an offence under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can mala fide be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case where specific evidence is lacking?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 538 dated 03.6.2020 at police station Muzafarabad, District Multan, for of fence under Section 381, PPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that of committing theft being servant of the complainant.
3. Heard. Available record perused.
4. A review of the record demonstrates that the occurrence took place between 8.10.2019 to 06.12.2019 but the incident was reported on 03.6.2020 with unexplained delay of about six months. No reason for such delay was forthcoming on record. No specific date, time or lace of commission of theft was either mentioned in the FIR or hinted at by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General. The petitioners have been nominated in the crime report without any specific role and on the basis of material collected, during the investigation, their roles cannot be deciphered. What item was stolen by the petitioners being servants of the complainant?, Learned Deputy Prosecutor General could not satisfactorily explain this fact. Even otherwise, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidance/material and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The record further suggested that there was a dispute between the parties requiring rendition of accounts. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Mala fide was asserted in the petition and there was no allegation of misuse of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.
5. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing their fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.