PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 255
[Lahore High Court Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6386-B of 2025, decided on 11.8.2025.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ضمانت-معاملے کی رپورٹنگ میں تاخیر-کوئی قابل فہم وضاحت-تاخیر کے لئے کسی بھی وضاحت کی عدم موجودگی میں ، ایک امکان یہ ہے کہ پولیس کو معاملے کی اطلاع دینے میں تاخیر کا استعمال کیا گیا تھا اور F.I.R کے غلط بیانیے کو استعمال کرنے کے لئے استعمال کیا گیا تھا. جس میں ، درخواست گزار ملوث تھا-غیر واضح ہونے کی وجہ سے تاخیر کی اہمیت اور استغاثہ کے کیس پر اس کے اثرات کا تعین ٹرائل کورٹ کے ذریعہ بہتر طریقے سے کیا جائے گا ، تاہم ، فی الحال ، اس مرحلے پر ، یہ کیس کے شکایت کنندہ کی طرف سے پولیس کو معاملے کی اطلاع دینے سے پہلے کہانی کو سلائی کرنے کی کوشش کو ظاہر کرتا ہے-تاخیر اس کی شدت سے نمایاں ہے اور یہ بھی حد سے زیادہ ہے - پہلی نظر میں ، اس مرحلے پر ، یہ جمع کیا جا سکتا ہے کہ مذکورہ تاخیر کو معاملے کے ساتھ آگے بڑھنے سے پہلے درخواست گزار کے خلاف بیانیہ تیار کرنے اور وضع کرنے کے لیے استعمال کیا گیا تھا ۔
----S. 498--Bail--Delay in reporting matter--No plausible explanation--In absence of any explanation for delay, a possibility does arise that said delay in reporting matter to police was used to concoct and style a false narrative of F.I.R. wherein, petitioner had been involved--The delay being unexplained attains importance and impact of same upon prosecution case shall be better determined by trial Court, however, presently, at this stage, it does reveal effort by complainant of case to stitch out a story before reporting matter to police--The delay is conspicuous by its magnitude and is also inordinate--Prima facie, at this stage, it can be gathered that said delay was used for evolving and devising a narrative against petitioner prior to proceeding with matter. [Para 4] A
2020 SCMR 861 & 2021 SCMR 130.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
ایس ۔ 498-پاکستان پینل کوڈ ، 1860 (1860 کا ایکس ایل وی) ایس ۔ 379 اور 411-- قبل از گرفتاری ضمانت ، گندم کی فصل کی چوری کا الزام-مستقل مزاجی کا اصول --- درخواست گزاروں کے شریک ملزم کو ٹرائل کورٹ نے گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت پر داخل کیا تھا ، یہ مضحکہ خیز ہوگا کہ درخواست گزاروں کو صرف اس لیے سلاخوں کے پیچھے بھیجا جائے کہ انہیں مستقل مزاجی کے اصول پر گرفتاری کے بعد ضمانت پر رہا کیا جائے ۔ گندم کی فصل کی ملکیت پر تنازعہ موجود تھا ، اس لیے امکان موجود ہے کہ درخواست گزار مذکورہ تنازعہ کی وجہ سے اس معاملے میں ملوث رہے ہوں - مخصوص حالات کے پیش نظر ، درخواست گزاروں کے وکیل کا یہ دعوی کہ اس معاملے میں درخواست گزاروں کی شمولیت بدنیتی اور بدنیتی پر مبنی ہے ، ایک ایسا دعوی ہے جسے اس مرحلے پر بے بنیاد یا بنیاد کے بغیر نہیں کہا جا سکتا ۔ تفتیشی افسر پہلے ہی درخواست گزاروں کے ساتھ ساتھ شکایت کنندہ کے بیانات کی تصدیق کر چکا ہے - درخواست گزاروں کو بار کے پیچھے بھیجنے سے کوئی فائدہ مند مقصد پورا نہیں ہوگا اور ان کی ساکھ کو ناقابل تلافی نقصان پہنچے گا ۔
----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379 & 411--Pre-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Committed theft of wheat crop--Principle of consistency--The co-accused of petitioners, was admitted to post-arrest bail by trial Court, it would be ludicrous that petitioners be sent behind bars only for them to be released on post-arrest bail on ground of principle of consistency--There existed a dispute over ownership of wheat crop, hence, a possibility does exist that petitioners have been involved in case due to said dispute--In view of peculiar circumstances, assertion of counsel for petitioners that involvement of petitioners in case is based on malafide and malicious intent, is an assertion which cannot be said to be without substance or foundation at this stage--The Investigating Officer has already verified versions of petitioners as well as complainant--Sending petitioners behind bar would serve no useful purpose and would cause irreparable loss to their reputation.
[Para 4] B & C
2022 SCMR 821 & PLD 2017 SC 730.
Ch. Daoud Ahmed Wains, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Muhammad Umar Farooq Khan, Additional Prosecutor General for State.
Malik Ayaz Mehdi, Advocate for Complainant/Respondent
No. 2.
Date of hearing: 11.8.2025.
Order
Through this petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. the petitioners namely Allah Diwaya and Yar Muhammad, seek pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 756 of 2025, dated 09.05.2025, registered in respect of offences under Sections 379 and 411, PPC, at the Police Station City Jalalpur Pirwala, District Multan.
2. The allegations against the petitioners namely Allah Diwaya and Yar Muhammad, culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, are that they along with their co-accused, fourteen in total (ten of the accused were named in the F.I.R whereas it was got recorded that they were accompanied by four unknown accused persons), committed theft of wheat crop belonging to the complainant of the case, grown over the area of 42-Kanals.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/Respondent No2, the learned Additional Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. This is a pre-arrest bail and only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court is to be made at this stage. A perusal of the record reveals that the theft of the wheat was discovered on 19.04.2025, however, the matter was reported to the police only on 09.05.2025. No explanation, much less plausible, is on record to substantiate the said deferral in registration of the F.I.R. In the absence of any explanation for the delay, a possibility does arise that the said delay in reporting the matter to the police was used to concoct and style a false narrative of the F.I.R. wherein, the petitioner had been involved. The delay being unexplained attains importance and the impact of the same upon the prosecution case shall be better determined by the learned trial Court, however, presently, at this stage, it does reveal the effort by the complainant of the case to stitch out a story before reporting the matter to the police. The delay is conspicuous by its magnitude and is also inordinate. Prima facie, at this stage, it can be gathered that the said delay was used for evolving and devising a narrative against the petitioner prior to proceeding with the matter. Reliance is placed on the case of “Abdul Ghafoor Gondal vs. The State” (2020 SCMR 861) and the case of “Khair Muhammad and another versus The State through P.G. Punjab and another” (2021 SCMR 130), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“There is no denial to this fact that the petitioners are nominated in the crime report. According to the contents of the crime report, it is mentioned that the occurrence has taken place in the morning (صبح ویلہ) whereas the matter was reported to police at 10:50 am. Admittedly, the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and police station is 08-KM. Inordinate delay qua time of occurrence and registration clearly reveals that possibility of deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out.
…………………
The concept of pre-arrest bail is exceptional, it has to be exercised sparingly. The purpose behind is to save innocent persons from false allegations, trumped up charges and malicious prosecution at the end of complainant party. In the salutary judgment of this Court reported as “Meeran Bux v. The State and another” (PLD 1989 SC 347), the scope of the pre-arrest bail has been widened and as such while granting pre-arrest bail even the merits of the case can be touched upon.”
Reliance is also placed on the case of “Jamaluddin and another vs. The State” (2023 SCMR 1243) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“There is no denial to this fact that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of about three days. The only explanation put forth by the complainant is that firstly they got the Police letter for treatment from Civil Hospital and after the treatment they lodged the FIR. However, this explanation does not seem to be impressive, especially when the Police was allegedly approached by the complainant on the very first day.”
Another aspect of the case is that the allegations which were levelled against the petitioners, were also levelled against Ghous Bakhsh, the co-accused of the petitioners, who after being arrested, was admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. It is admitted by the learned Additional Prosecutor General that the said order, whereby Ghous Bakhsh, the co-accused of the petitioners, was admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court, has not been assailed before any forum either by the State or by the complainant of the case and is still in the field. It is also admitted part of the prosecution case that the evidentiary material against the petitioners and that against Ghous Bakhsh, the co-accused of the petitioner, is similar. The learned Additional Prosecutor General is unable to refer to any statement of any witness recorded during the investigation of the case distinguishing the case of the petitioners from their co-accused namely Ghous Bakhsh. In the presence of the said order whereby Ghous Bakhsh, the co-accused of the petitioners, was admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court, it would be ludicrous that the petitioners be sent behind the bars only for them to be released on post-arrest bail on the ground of principle of consistency. Reliance is placed on the case of “Muhammad Kashif Iqbal versus The State and another” (2022 SCMR 821), wherein, the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:--
“It is an admitted fact that the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted post-arrest bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction which remains unchallenged by the complainant. Any order by this Court on any technical ground that the consideration for pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footing, would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would become entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. In the case reported as Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), the respondent was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned High Court while the other similarly placed co-accused were granted bail after arrest. The complainant did not challenge the grant of bail after arrest to the similarly placed co-accused and sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent before this Court by filing a criminal petition but this Court dismissed the petition for cancellation of bail by holding that “no useful purpose would be served if the bail of Zafar Ullah Khan respondent is cancelled on any technical ground because after arrest he would again be allowed bail on the ground that similarly placed other accused are already on bail.” Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling for further inquiry into his guilt.
6. For what has been discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it, set aside the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned High Court and confirm the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2021.”
Reliance is also placed on the case of “Jamaluddin and another vs. The State” (2023 SCMR 1243) wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:
“As far as the principle enunciated by this Court regarding the consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely on different footings is concerned, we have noticed that in this case both the petitioners are ascribed the same role. For the sake of arguments if it is assumed that the petitioner enjoying ad interim pre-arrest bail is declined the relief on the ground that the considerations for pre-arrest bail are different and the other is granted post-arrest bail on merits, then the same would be only limited upto the arrest of the petitioner Jamaluddin because of the reason that soon after his arrest he would be entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail on the plea of consistency. Reliance is placed on the cases reported as Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah (1986 SCMR 1380), Kazim Ali and others v. The State and others (2021 SCMR 2086), Muhammad Kashif Iqbal v. The State and another (2022 SCMR 821) and Javed Iqbal v. The State through Prosecutor General of Punjab and another (2022 SCMR 1424)”
The Investigating Officer of the case, present before the Court, submits that the recovery of the remaining stolen wheat crop is to be made from the possession of the petitioners. The learned Additional Prosecutor General submits that as the recovery of the remaining stolen wheat crop is to be made from the petitioners, hence, they do not deserve the grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail, it is observed that in the F.I.R no specific features of the stolen wheat crop have been mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, even if any recovery is made, it would be impossible to relate the recovered wheat crop with the stolen wheat crop. Moreover, the arrest of the petitioners is not necessary for the purpose of recovery and the said purpose can be achieved by procuring a search warrant by the Investigating Officer. It has been brought on the record that there existed a dispute over the ownership of the wheat crop, hence, a possibility does exist that the petitioners have been involved in the case due to the said dispute. In view of the peculiar circumstances, the assertion of learned counsel for the petitioners that the involvement of the petitioners in the case is based on malafide and malicious intent, is an assertion which cannot be said to be without substance or foundation at this stage. The Investigating Officer has already verified the versions of the petitioners as well as the complainant. Sending the petitioners behind the bar would serve no useful purpose and would cause irreparable loss to their reputation. Reliance is placed on the case of “Khalil Ahmad Soomro and others v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730) wherein the following principle has been enunciated:
“Although for grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions is that the accused person has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior consideration. At pre-arrest bail stage, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/ materials and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and if some events-hints to that effect are available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide.”
5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners, by this Court, vide order dated 18.07.2025, is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) each with two sureties cach, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit. Additionally, the Investigating Officer of the case is directed to conclude the investigation of the case within the next three days. The S.H.O. Police Station concerned is directed to submit the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court within the next ten days positively and the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in accordance with law and expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months after taking cognizance of the case. If the delay in the conclusion of the trial is occasioned by an act of the petitioners or any person acting on their behalf, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioners, in accordance with the law. If the petitioners absent themselves from the learned trial Court or misuse the concession of bail in any manner, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to cancel their bail, in accordance with the law.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments