MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Muhammad Akram seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.110 of 2006 registered under section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Alpa, Multan, relating to the alleged theft of fish from the complainant's fish farm. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner has established mala fide on the part of the complainant and the police, and whether he is entitled to pre-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and a co-accused has already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner successfully demonstrated mala fide by both the complainant and the police, noted a significant delay in lodging the F.I.R., observed that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be granted where mala fide on the part of the prosecution or police is shown, the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause, and a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the accused establishes mala fide on the part of the complainant and the police?
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when a co-accused with a similar role has already been admitted to bail?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J .--- Through this miscellaneous petition Muhammad Akram petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.110 of 2006 dated 26-4-2006 registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan under section 381, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while being an employee of the complainant on his fish farm had been stealing the fish, which resulted in a loss of 500 Mounds of fish.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the instant case has been registered with mala fide intention on the part of complainant, that the petitioner was engaged because he was considered to be an expert in fish farming, that the petitioner has been serving the respondent for at least four months, but he was not paid any remuneration, when he demanded the same the complainant refused to do so and the petitioner left the job of complainant, which annoyed the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the local police with the connivance of complainant is bent upon to involve him in the false case. The learned counsel has produced certified copy of order, dated 8-8-2006, whereby the petitioner was allowed ad interim pre-arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the police arrested the petitioner and illegally detained him for one day, that on the next day when he was produced before Illaqa Magistrate, who carne to know that the petitioners had been allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail, he ordered the release of petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had lodged a F.I.R. No.363 of 2005 against the brother of Nawaz and Ishfaq P.Ws., at Police Station Alpa, Multan, hence the both the P.Ws. of this case were also inimical to the petitioner.
4. The bail application of petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. He argued that the conduct of the petitioner is to be seen while granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail that he obtained pre-arrest bail from the Court of Session, but did not appear on the date fixed for hearing resultantly his hail was dismissed due to non-appearance of petitioner, that the petitioner committed the theft of huge quantity of fish belonging to the complainant, that there is no mala fide on the part of complainant and the police, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4-A. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. The petitioner was admittedly an employee of the complainant. He was considered to be expert in fish farming. He started the business of complainant and allegedly did not receive any salary or remuneration. The petitioner had left the farm of complainant it was then the instant F.I.R. was got registered. The contention of petitioner that he has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner has quoted an instance of mala fide of the police. The petitioner had been granted ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In spite of being on bail he was arrested and kept in illegal confinement of one day. It was only on the order of Illaqa Magistrate that the petitioner was released. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show mala fide not only on the part of police but also on behalf of the complainant. Abdul Khaliq, co-accused, of the petitioner has been granted post-arrest bail by Illaqa Magistrate. When a co-accused having similar role stands admitted to post-arrest bail, then the petitioner cannot be denied even the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has been alleged that 500 Mounds of fish had been stolen by the petitioner. It is not possible that the petitioner without any transport could steal such a huge quantity of fish. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. There is delay of one year and one month in lodging the F.I.R. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
5. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest. This application is, therefore, allowed. Ad interim bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed. He shall, however, furnish fresh bait bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-721/L Bail confirmed.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus State 2009 YLR 2055