PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1447
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 380--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmed--Allegation of theft--Complainant lodged FIR with of about three years for which he has not furnished any explanation--It reflects on veracity of his version--Admittedly, it was an unseen occurrence and Complainant has involved Petitioner in this case on statement of co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence--There no tangible incriminating material against petitioner apart from aforesaid statement--In this view of matter, it calls for further inquiry to determine guilt of petitioner--Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out--Held: It is by now well settled that unless a conviction is recorded against a person his mere involvement in other cases would not disentitle him to concession of bail. [Pp. 1448] A, B & C
2013 SCMR 669, 1997 SCMR 412, 2012 SCMR 573 and
2017 SCMR 279.
Rana Jahan Zeb Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Ehsan-ul-Haq, DDPP for State.
Complainant in Person.
Date of hearing: 9.1.2019.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1447
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE alias MAMUN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6203-B of 2018, decided on 9.1.2019.
Order
Through this criminal miscellaneous the Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 337/2018 dated 05.06.2018 registered at Police Station Alpa, District Multan, for an offence under Section 380, PPC.
2. As per crime report, the prosecution case is that on 4.11.2015 the Complainant and his family were sleeping in their house. At about 11:00 p.m. when the Complainant got up to answer a call of nature he found his three buffalos missing which he had tethered there. He made inquiry on his own and eventually learnt that the Petitioner was involved in the offence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. At the very outset, it is observed that the complainant lodged the FIR with the delay of about three years for which he has not furnished any explanation. It reflects on the veracity of his version. Admittedly, it was an unseen occurrence and the Complainant has involved the Petitioner in this case on the statement of co-accused Falak Sher which is inadmissible in evidence as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in “Raja Muhammad Younas v. The State” (2013 SCMR 669). During the course of arguments, the learned Law Officer frankly admitted that there is no tangible incriminating material against the Petitioner apart from the aforesaid statement. In this view of the matter, it calls for further inquiry to determine guilt of the Petitioner. Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
4. The learned Law Officer pointed out that the Petitioner is involved in seven other criminal cases and contended that the Petitioner could not be granted bail on this score. This argument has no merit as it is by now well settled that unless a conviction is recorded against a person his mere involvement in other cases would not disentitle him to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on “Muhammad Rafique v. The State” (1997 SCMR 412), “Jamal-ud-Din alias Zubair Khan v. The State” (2012 SCMR 573) and “Qurban Ali v. The State and others” (2017 SCMR 279).
5. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. The ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the Petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments