Pre-arrest bail, grant of---It is a settle principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the mala fides from the facts and circumstances of the case which apparently is oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184

Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 379--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of theft of wheats/Sarson Crop--Involvement of meager amount i.e. Rs. 50,000/- only--Unseen occurrence, beside the delay of three months in lodging crime report--Merits of the case--Held: It is a settle principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the mala fides from the facts and circumstances of the case which apparently is oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances--Court while deciding the pre-arrest bail can touch upon the merits of the case--Bail petition accepted.                                                                                  [P. 186] A & B

PLD 1998 SC 97, 2005 SCMR 784 ref.

M/s. Muhammad Mushtaq Ahamd Dhoon and Naila Mushtaq Dhoon, Advocates with Petitioner.

Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 3.12.2019.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 184
Present: Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, J.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 69327-B of 2019, decided on 3.12.2019.

Order

Apprehending his arrest at the hands of police, through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks his pre-iirrcst bail in case FIR No. 302, dated 22.08.2019, offence under Section 379., PPC. registered with Police Station. Saddar, Toba Teh Singh.

2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief as per contents of the crime report is that on 28.05.2019, he committed theft of wheat/sarson crop valuing Rs. 50,000/- belonging to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been roped in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. It is argued that there is delay of three months in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is contended that the story contained in the crime report is against the facts. It is argued that it is an unseen occurrence. Learned counsel submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is against the facts. Such circumstances, it is contended make the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Adds that the offence alleged against the petitioner does not attract the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In such circumstances it is argued that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for by means of instant petition.

4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has Opposed this petition. It is argued that the petitioner is named in the crime report with specific allegation. It is submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.

5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the crime report, but this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against the petitioner to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. There is delay of three months in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. It is an unseen occurrence. Even no source of transportation of the alleged stolen articles has been mentioned in the crime report. Such circumstances make the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry falling within the ambit of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Only meager amount of Rs. 50,000/- is involved in the case in hand. Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is a settled principle of law that the Court can even look into and evaluate the malafides from the facts and circumstances of the case, which apparently is oozing in this case from the facts and circumstances discussed above. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Ajmal Khan vs. Liaqat Hayat and another (PLD 1998 SC 97) and Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others vs. The State (2005 SCMR 784). Moreover, keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case Meeran Bux vs. The State & another (PLJ 1989 S.C. 526), the Court while deciding the pre-arrest bail can touch upon the merits of the case. The culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence.

7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is persuaded to accept this petition. Resultantly by allowing this petition, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 19.11.2019 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1.00.0007- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(Z.A.S.)           Bail confirmed