Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-RehmanMuhammad Bilal Butt,Malik Umer Humayun
2007 P Cr
2007 P Cr. L J 257
[Lahore]
Before Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM----Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.3600/B of 2006, decided on 23rd November, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Accused, who was employee of the complainant, was considered to be expert in fish farming---Accused had started business of complainant, but he did not receive any salary or remuneration---F.I.R. was got registered against accused when he left the Farm of complainant---Contention of accused that he had been involved in the case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by complainant could not be ruled out---Accused was granted ad interim pre-arrest bail, by Additional Sessions Judge, but despite he being on bail, was arrested and kept in illegal confinement for one day---Accused, in circumstances had been able to show mala fides not only on the part of the police, but also on behalf of complainant---Co-accused who had similar role, having been granted post-arrest bail, accused could not be denied, even concession of pre-arrest bail---Allegation against the accused was that 500 mounds of fish had been stolen by accused; it was not possible that accused without any transport, could steal such a huge quantity of fish---No witness of alleged occurrence was available on record---Delay of one year and one month in lodging of F.I.R.---Offence with which accused was charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused, in circumstances was entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail---Ad interim bail granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Bilal Butt for Petitioner.
Malik Umer Humayun for the Complainant.
Sheikh Imtiaz and Muhammad Abid, A.S.-I. for the State.
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Through this miscellaneous petition Muhammad Akram petitioner, seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.110 of 2006 dated 26-4-2006 registered with Police Station Alpa, Multan under section 381, P.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while being an employee of the complainant on his fish farm had been stealing the fish, which resulted in a loss of 500 Mounds of fish.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the instant case has been registered with mala fide intention on the part of complainant, that the petitioner was engaged because he was considered to be an expert in fish farming, that the petitioner has been serving the respondent for at least four months, but he was not paid any remuneration, when he demanded the same the complainant refused to do so and the petitioner left the job of complainant, which annoyed the complainant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the local police with the connivance of complainant is bent upon to involve him in the false case. The learned counsel has produced certified copy of order, dated 8-8-2006, whereby the petitioner was allowed ad interim pre-arrest by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the police arrested the petitioner and illegally detained him for one day, that on the next day when he was produced before Illaqa Magistrate, who carne to know that the petitioners had been allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail, he ordered the release of petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner had lodged a F.I.R. No.363 of 2005 against the brother of Nawaz and Ishfaq P.Ws., at Police Station Alpa, Multan, hence the both the P.Ws. of this case were also inimical to the petitioner.
4. The bail application of petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. He argued that the conduct of the petitioner is to be seen while granting the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail that he obtained pre-arrest bail from the Court of Session, but did not appear on the date fixed for hearing resultantly his hail was dismissed due to non-appearance of petitioner, that the petitioner committed the theft of huge quantity of fish belonging to the complainant, that there is no mala fide on the part of complainant and the police, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4-A. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. The petitioner was admittedly an employee of the complainant. He was considered to be expert in fish farming. He started the business of complainant and allegedly did not receive any salary or remuneration. The petitioner had left the farm of complainant it was then the instant F.I.R. was got registered. The contention of petitioner that he has been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by the complainant cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the petitioner has quoted an instance of mala fide of the police. The petitioner had been granted ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In spite of being on bail he was arrested and kept in illegal confinement of one day. It was only on the order of Illaqa Magistrate that the petitioner was released. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has been able to show mala fide not only on the part of police but also on behalf of the complainant. Abdul Khaliq, co-accused, of the petitioner has been granted post-arrest bail by Illaqa Magistrate. When a co-accused having similar role stands admitted to post-arrest bail, then the petitioner cannot be denied even the concession of pre-arrest bail. It has been alleged that 500 Mounds of fish had been stolen by the petitioner. It is not possible that the petitioner without any transport could steal such a huge quantity of fish. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. There is delay of one year and one month in lodging the F.I.R. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
5. In view of what has been discussed above I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest. This application is, therefore, allowed. Ad interim bail granted to the petitioner is confirmed. He shall, however, furnish fresh bait bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-721/L Bail confirmed.