FARID and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail by two petitioners in a case registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the dismissal of their previous bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail in the absence of direct or circumstantial evidence connecting them to the alleged theft, and whether mere suspicion along with a private recovery from a third party's premises established reasonable grounds for guilt. The High Court observed that the theft remained unwitnessed and the alleged recovery was made privately from a Dera belonging to another person without linking the petitioners to the handling of the stolen property. Holding that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, and finding prima facie mala fide involvement by the complainant and police, the Court accepted the petition and confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail.
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the alleged theft is unwitnessed and no direct or indirect evidence links the accused to the offence?
- Does a private recovery of stolen property from premises belonging to a third party justify the implication of the accused under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can suspicion, however strong, substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal case for the purpose of denying bail?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition Farid and Aslam petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,149 registered at Police Station Dalwaryam, District Pakpattan Sharif on 21-11-2001 for offence under sections 379 and 411, P.P.C. Previously an application submitted by the petitioners for the same relief before the Court of Session, Pakpattan Sharif had been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakpattan Sharif vide order dated 22-12-2001.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that as far as the offence under section 379, P.P.C. Is concerned the alleged theft in question had admittedly remained unwitnessed and so far there is no direct or indirect evidence available on the record pointing towards the petitioners' involvement in the said theft. As regards the. Offence under section 411, P.P.C. It has been noticed that the recovery in this regard was admittedly a private recovery and the stolen material was not recovered from any specific person but the same had alleg dly been recovered from a Dera belonging to one Humayun Khaitran. He record of investigation of this case shows that the prosecution is presently not possessed of any material whatsoever to show as to on what basis the present petitioners are being suspected. Of committing the alleged theft or in respect of their involvement regarding handling of the stolen property. In these circumstances the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that implication of the present petitioners in this case is an outcome of mala fide on the part of the complainant party as well as the local police may not be without any foundation or substance. It is settled law that suspicion, howsoever, strong can never be a proper substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt required in a criminal case.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the present petitioners by this Court on 14-2-2002 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of fresh bail bonds by the petitioners in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate of Police Station Dalwarya, District Pakpattan Sharif.
Pre-arrest .