Sheikh MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 457 and Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of theft from an apartment. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to confirmation of bail given the background of a civil dispute, lack of recovery, and the complainant's failure to join the investigation. The court held that the bail already granted to the petitioner should be confirmed, noting the existence of a prior civil suit filed by the petitioner against the complainant, the absence of recoveries from co-accused, and the complainant's failure to appear before the investigating officer despite summons. The key principle laid down is that while bail is not normally extended in theft cases, attending circumstances such as mala fide implication stemming from civil disputes, non-participation of the complainant in the investigation, and lack of recovery can constitute sufficient grounds for confirming pre-arrest bail.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed in a theft case where a civil dispute exists between the parties?
- Does the failure of the complainant to join the investigation support the confirmation of bail for the accused?
- Is the absence of any recovery from the accused or co-accused a relevant factor for confirming bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' States that the petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No,105 of 1998, dated 22-3-1998 under section 457/380, P.P.C. Wherein households worth Rs,39,000 are alleged to have been stolen. The petitioner as well as his wife Mst. Parveen alongwith Khalil, Asif and Tariq were involved as accused persons.
2. Out of them Mst. Parveen and Tariq are on bail. It has been argued with vehemence that in fact the petitioner had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the complainant because he himself is owner of the apartment wherefrom the alleged theft has taken place. It is, therefore, argued that he has been falsely implicated with mala fide intention. Tariq was taken into custody but no recovery could be effected from him. This fact supports the petitioner's contention that he has been falsely roped-in in this case. Be that as it may, without making any comments on the merits of the case considering that complainant did not appear before the Investigating Officer in spite of various summons issued to him. No material except the instant F.I.R. Is available with the prosecution to establish the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is true that normally in theft cases bail is not extended but considering the facts that the petitioner himself had filed a civil suit against the complainant and also that no recovery was effected from his son and his wife co-accused and also that the complainant has not even joined the investigation, I am pursuaded to confirm the bail already granted to the petitioner. He shall however, submit fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate of the area.
Cited by 1 case
- FURRUKH SHAHZAD And Another vs THE STATE And Another 2011 YLR 809