PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 31
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), S. 406--Bail before arrest, grant of--Allegation of--Misappropriated tractor trolly of complainant--Further inquiry--Complainant later transferred ownership of said tractor trolley through Excise and Taxation Officer showing her as owner--Since date of alleged handing over of tractor trolley complainant has not filed any suit for recovery of such tractor trolley--Counsel for petitioners contends that as story put-forth by complainant was not confidence inspiring--FIR was not registered upon which she filed an application before Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-A officio Justice of Peace and police submitted comments in such proceedings denying fact of handing over praetor trolley to petitioners but FIR was stood registered and now petitioners are being dragged unnecessarily in this case--Such situation calls for a question of further inquiry into guilt of present petitioners--Under circumstances, malafide on part of complainant to falsely involve petitioners in case in hand cannot be ruled out--Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that grounds available to an accused in post-arrest bail can also be considered at time of granting pre-arrest bail--Bail confirmed. [Para 3] A, B & C
2021 SCMR 130 and PLD 2009 SC 427.
Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Advocate with Petitioners.
Miss Noshe Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Miss Naila Mushtaq Ahmad Dhoon, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing 16.3.2022.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 31
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ and 3 others--Petitioners
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 9214-B of 2022, decided on 16.3.2022.
Order
Through this petition, petitioners Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Nawaz and Asghar have sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 38 dated 23.01.2022 registered under Section 406, PPC at Police Station Saddar Toba Tek Singh facing the allegations that they have misappropriated the tractor trolley of the complainant.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the crime was reported to the police with the delay of 185-days without any plausible explanation. Complainant claims of handing over tractor trolley to the petitioners on trust for which no document is available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that infact tractor trolley was in the ownership of one Ghulam Abbas. Present complainant is sister of said Ghulam Abbas who has divorced his wife and later he died and the only son Waqas was his legal heir. Waqas infact is the son of cousin of Asghar accused and was living with the petitioners. Ghulam Abbas was died in year 2019. Complainant later transferred the ownership of said tractor trolley through Excise and Taxation Officer showing her as owner. Since the date of alleged handing over of tractor trolley the complainant has not filed any suit for recovery of such tractor trolley. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as the story put-forth by the complainant was not confidence inspiring therefore, primarily. FIR was not registered upon which she filed an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-D officio Justice of the Peace and police submitted comments in such proceedings denying the fact of handing over the tractor trolley to the petitioners but FIR was stood registered and now the petitioners are being dragged unnecessarily in this case. Such situation calls for a question of further inquiry into the guilt of present petitioners. Under the circumstances, malafide on the part of the complainant to falsely involve the petitioners in the case in hand cannot be ruled out. Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case law reported as “Khair Muhammad and another vs. the State-through P.G. Punjab and another” (2021 SCMR 130) has held that while deciding pre-arrest bail application the merits of the case can be touched upon. It was further held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that the grounds available to an accused in post-arrest bail can also be considered at the time of granting pre-arrest bail. Reliance is placed on judgment reported as “Rana Muhammad Arshad vs. Muhammad Rafique and another” (PLD 2009 Supreme Court 427).
4. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments