MUHAMMAD RAFIQ BEHALAM vs THE STATE
The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered under section 379/34, P.P.C. read with section 13 of A.N.A. Act, 1974 relating to an incident of oil leakage and alleged theft from a pipeline belonging to PARCO. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail when there was no direct eyewitness account linking him to the alleged theft and the prosecution relied solely on circumstantial evidence. The court held that since no witness saw the accused committing the theft and the arrest appeared tainted with malice, a proper case for pre-arrest bail was made out. The court laid down the principle that in the absence of direct evidence connecting the accused to the crime and where circumstances suggest potential malice in arrest, pre-arrest bail should be confirmed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when there is no direct evidence linking the accused to the alleged crime?
- Is an arrest considered tainted with malice when police papers and direct eyewitness accounts are absent?
- Whether recovery of tools and filled drums at the incident site constitutes sufficient direct evidence against an accused for denying bail?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, A.N.A. Act 1974
ORDER
1. ' Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,137 of 2003 in an offence punishable under section 379/34, P.P.C. Read with section 13 of A.N.A. Act, 1974 of Police Station Zaman Town, Karachi-East.
2. The applicant/accused preferred his pre-arrest bail in the trial Court and sought interim pre-arrest bail, but after hearing the learned counsel and the D.D.A. The interim pre-arrest bail was recalled and bail application was dismissed vide order dated 15-1-2004.
3. ' In the F.I.R. It is stated that on 8-10-2003, the basis of written application of Syed Muhammad Tariq, Assistant Security Officer, PARCO was incorporated and same was registered as 137 of 2003. It is alleged that PARCO is a national company, which supplies oil through its pipeline from Karachi to Sheikhupura. On the day of incident he was informed on telephone through PARCO Control Room that near Coast. Guards Chorangi, Karachi there was leakage of oil from their pipeline. On receipt of such information he along with Security personnel immediately reached at the pointed place and saw that inside Nursery after digging the earth a hole of 1/2 inch was made in the pipeline in which iron jack was installed. On inspection two drums of 200 liters each were lying there duly filled with the oil and oil was spreading in the area due to leakage at that place. In case of such leakage, the pipeline could be blasted and could catch fire. In the F.I.R. It is alleged against applicant and co-accused Muhammad Haleem alias Papoo, Hassan Ali, Saleem, Nawaz Palari, Karim Dogar being their companions have committed the offence. In the F.I.R. It is not disclosed that the complainant and police officials have seen the applicant and his companions at the place of incident or they tried to remove the oil in any vehicle. Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque, learned counsel for applicant, has stated that the applicant/accused will be maltreated by the police if the interim pre-arrest bail is not extended to him.
4. ' Ms. Akhtar Rehana, learned counsel for the State, has submitted that at present police papers are not available with her and interim pre-arrest bail may be extended to the applicant/accused.
5. ' In view of the grounds, urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, interim pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicant/accused subject to his furnishing surely in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R.
6. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court.
7. ' To come up on 11-2-2004 for confirmation or otherwise.
8. (Sd.) Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery Judge 27-1-2004
ORDER
9. ' Saathi Muhammad Ishaque for Applicant. Raja Ali Asghar for the Complainant.
10. ' Sardar Muhammad Qureshi for the State.
11. ' It is conceded by the learned counsel for the complainant's counsel that no one witness had seen the accused while stealing the oil. B He has placed certain documents which indicate that certain pipes rods and iron bars were found at the place of incident which indicate that attempt was made for stealing oil. At the place of incident the Investigating Officer saw the leakage of oil from their pipeline and recovered certain pipes iron bars and connecting rods. According to the F.I.R. It is only alleged that applicant and other co-accused tried to steal the oil as two drums were found duly filled with the oil and oil was spreading in the area due to leakage at that place. According to the investigation it is alleged that the act of the applicant and his companions caused national loss and such act falls with anti-national activities. It is conceded that no direct evidence for committing the theft is available but at the time of inspection by Investigating Officer certain materials were found showing the digging of the earth and three drums were found filled with oil and two pipes besides one iron rod and connecting rods. The circumstantial piece of evidence in respect of the commission of the offence cannot be termed against the applicant/accused.
12. ' In view of this position, the arrest of the applicant/accused is tainted with malice.
13. ' In view of the above contention the case is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail. The bail is accordingly confirmed in the same terms and conditions. The applicant/accused is directed to join investigation as and when needed.
14. Pre-arrest .