Pakistan Case LawASGHAR ALI Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court confirming the pre-arrest bail of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner alleged that the respondents committed theft of cloth from his power loom factory. The respondents, however, contended that the case was a retaliatory measure, noting that they had previously obtained a High Court order directing the police to register a complaint against the petitioner just days before the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. against them. The High Court, observing that the respondents had been cooperating with the investigation and that the timing of the F.I.R. suggested a possibility of false implication, confirmed their pre-arrest bail. The petitioner argued that the respondents had admitted guilt and agreed to arbitration, but the Supreme Court found that the arbitration agreement did not constitute an admission of liability. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the circumstances justified the grant of pre-arrest bail, and refused leave to appeal.
- Does an agreement to refer a dispute to arbitration constitute an admission of guilt in a criminal case?
- Can the timing of an F.I.R. relative to a prior legal action by the accused against the complainant support a finding of potential false implication?
- Is the cooperation of an accused with the investigation a relevant factor in confirming pre-arrest bail?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby the per-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.1 and 2 was confirmed.
2.The petitioner had installed power looms in which respondent No, 1 was employed. The petitioner lodged a report on 23-8-1992 that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have stolen cloth worth Rs,3,36,000. It was alleged that respondent No, 2 Muhammad Ramzan, real brother of respondent No,1 had been visiting him in the factory. It is alleged that the respondents have confessed the guilt and promised to repay the amount and in this regard they had agreed for an arbitration as well. From the facts on record it seems that respondent No, 1 Muhammad Rafiq had made a complaint to the High Court that the Police had refused to register his complaint against the petitioner. By order dated 16- 8-1992 the High Court directed the S.S.P., Faisalabad to receive the complaint of respondent No, 1 for taking action on it according to law. The petitioner lodged his F.I.R. On 23-8-1992 after respondent No,1 had taken action in the matter. The learned Judge in Chambers while taking note of the fact that the Investigating Officer had stated that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been joining the investigation as and when they were asked to do so, further observed as follows:
"Admitted position is that the petitioners obtained a direction from this Court for registration of a case against the complainant party on 16-8-1992 before the registration of this case against them. However, the case was registered against them by the Police on 23-8-1992. This being so the possibility of the false implication of the petitioners in the case in the given circumstances cannot be ruled out The ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners on 7-12-1992 is hereby confirmed."
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had admitted to have committed theft and had agreed for an arbitrator for settlement of the dispute. The learned counsel referred to document at page 41 in support of his contention. This document merely states that there is a dispute between the parties about the theft of the cloth which is being referred to arbitration of Raja Riaz Ahmad, the Councillor and B Chairman. From this document it seems that without admitting any liability, and disputing the claim the matter was referred to arbitration. In these circumstances and due to the reason given by the learned Judge in Chambers referred to above, leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments