MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in a criminal case registered under Sections 382 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged snatching of two tractors. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the dispute and the investigation findings. The Court held that the petitioners are entitled to bail. The judgment observes that the underlying dispute between the parties is primarily civil in nature, stemming from a disagreement over the payment of tractor installments, which had previously been referred to a local Panchayat. The Court further noted a significant eight-day delay in lodging the First Information Report and highlighted that seven out of the nine accused persons named in the FIR had been declared innocent during the police investigation. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, directing the release of the petitioners upon furnishing bail bonds, emphasizing that the criminal proceedings appeared to be an attempt to resolve a civil dispute without the requisite mens rea.
- Does a dispute over the payment of installments for purchased property render a criminal case primarily civil in nature?
- Can the fact that a majority of co-accused were declared innocent during investigation serve as a ground for granting bail to the remaining accused?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR impact the entitlement to bail?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners seek bail in a case registered vide F.1 No,117, dated 4-7-2001 under sections 382/411, P.P.C. Police Station Bharana, District Jhang wherein it is alleged that on the fateful day and time nine persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners came to the place where the complainant was ploughing his fields. They snatched tractors bearing Nos.JGB 528 and VR 4622 owned by the complainant and his cousin Muhammad Ihsan which they had purchased on instalments a few months prior to the registration of this case. It was further alleged that the complainant made efforts to have the tractors retrieved through Punchayat but it was of no avail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case registered is false, that as a matter of fact the complainant and his cousin, who had purchased tractors, were not giving their instalments on account of which a dispute arose and the petitioners got the tractors back through intervention of the respectables; that after the registration of the case, an lqrar Nama was executed which is duly signed by the complainant and it reflects that the instant case is primarily a civil dispute and no mens rea is indicated. Further submits that seven out of nine accused have been declared innocent during investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition but could not deny that the background of the case is primarily a civil dispute.
4. Heard.
5. There is a delay of eight days in lodging the F.I.R. According to the prosecution story itself, the tractors in question were purchased on instalments and there was dispute regarding outstanding payment of those instalments and the matter was referred to the Punchayat even prior to the registration of the case. Admittedly, seven out of nine accused persons, have been declared innocent during the investigation. Petitioners are in judicial lock-up. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate section 30 concerned.