MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the refusal of the Lahore High Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was accused of theft under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, a driver, was alleged to have stolen his employer's vehicle and sold it. While the petitioner claimed ownership based on a receipt of purchase, the investigation revealed that the alleged seller denied issuing such a document. Furthermore, the State demonstrated that the petitioner had a history of criminal involvement and had absconded following the cancellation of his interim bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, resulting in him being declared a proclaimed offender. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in light of the disputed evidence and his conduct. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court upheld the High Court's refusal, dismissed the petition, and withdrew the interim bail previously granted, emphasizing that the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender and the questionable nature of his defense precluded relief.
- Is a petitioner who has been declared a proclaimed offender entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Does the denial of the authenticity of a document by the alleged signatory justify the refusal of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner, against whom and some others a case under section 381, P. P.
C. Stands registered, is aggrieved by the refusal by the Lahore High Court to grant him pre-arrest bail.
2. The allegation is that the petitioner, who was a driver of Hasan Ashraf complainant, had stolen the complainant's Toyota car bearing registra--petition No. RIG 9500 and in spite of promise to return the car had failed to do so and had in fact sold away the same at Rawalpindi for Rs. 32,000.
The petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, but after hearing the case the learned Judge cancelled the same on 10-5-1983. In his petition before the High Court, the petitioner had urged that he was in fact the owner of the car which he had purchased from one Muhammad Zahid Akhtar for Rs. 32,000. The submission did not prevail. When the case had come up before us on the last date, that is, 21-6-1983, the petitioner's counsel had relied on a receipt in the sum of Rs.32,000 said to have been executed by Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in favour of the petitioner. We had accordingly issued notice to the Advocate General for 2-7-1983 and granted interim bail to the petitioner. On the latter date the Investigation Officer was directed to ascertain the genuineness of the said receipt by summoning Muhammad Zahid Akhtar in the presence of the petitioner. The Investigating Officer, who is present today, states that he did the needful and that Muhammad Zahid Akhtar denied having issued any such receipt in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State also points out that not only a number of criminal cases are pending against the petitioner, but he had also been absconding after 10-5-1983 and had to be declared a proclaimed offender on 31-5-1983. In the circumstance, w are not satisfied that it is a fit case for interfering with the order of the High Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the interim bail allowed to the petitioner withdrawn.