--Incident was reported with unexplained delay of about six months--No specific date, time or place of commission of theft was either mentioned in the FIR-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 354

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 381--Incident was reported with unexplained delay of about six months--No specific date, time or place of commission of theft was either mentioned in the FIR--Petitioners have been nominated in the crime report without any specific role--Record further suggested that there was a dispute between the parties requiring rendition of accounts--Pre-arrest bail Confirmed.        [P. 355] A & B

Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate with Petitioners.

Mr. Hassan Mehmood Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 30.6.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 354
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sardar Ahmad Naeem, J.
ABDUL GHAFFAR, etc.--Petitioners
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 3771-B of 2021, decided on 30.6.2021.

Order

Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case registered vide FIR No. 538 dated 03.6.2020 at police station Muzafarabad, District Multan, for offence under Section 381, PPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that of committing theft being servant of the complainant.

3. Heard. Available record perused.

4. A review of the record demonstrates that the occurrence took place between 8.10.2019 to 06.12.2019 but the incident was reported on 03.6.2020 with unexplained delay of about six months. No reason for such delay was forthcoming on record. No specific date, time or place of commission of theft was either mentioned in the FIR or hinted at by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General. The petitioners have been nominated in the crime report without any specific role and on the basis of material collected, during the investigation, their roles cannot be deciphered. What item was stolen by the petitioners being servants of the complainant?, Learned Deputy Prosecutor General could not satisfactorily explain this fact. Even otherwise, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/material and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. The record further suggested that there was a dispute between the parties requiring rendition of accounts. The offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Mala fide was asserted in the petition and there was no allegation of misuse of ad-interim pre-arrest bail.

5. For the reasons mentioned above, the application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioners is confirmed subject to furnishing their fresh bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Judge.

(M.A.B.)         Bail confirmed