Bail Confirmed on 45 days delay in Lodging FIR
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involves Muhammad Rafique, who was accused of stealing four cattle from a complainant's shed in Multan. An FIR was registered against him and another person under sections of the Pakistan Penal Code dealing with theft and dishonestly receiving stolen property. However, the FIR was filed one and a half months after the cattle went missing, and this delay was never explained by the complainant.
The Lahore High Court found several problems with the prosecution's case. There was no explanation of how the complainant suddenly came to know that the petitioner was involved in the theft. Additionally, the investigating officer admitted that the stolen cattle had actually been recovered earlier under a separate legal provision, having been left behind by unidentified persons, well before the FIR was even filed. This raised doubts about whether the story linking the petitioner to the crime was genuine.
The court also noted that the investigating officer confirmed nothing remained to be recovered from the petitioner, that the investigation was already complete, and that the case had been sent to trial but had not yet begun. The petitioner had no prior criminal record, and the charges did not fall under the more serious category of offenses that would normally block bail.
Given these doubts and the lack of prior convictions, the court ruled that the matter required further inquiry at trial and confirmed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail, requiring him to post a bond of Rs. 50,000 with a surety.
یہ مقدمہ محمد رفیع سے متعلق ہے جن پر ملتان میں مدعی کے باڑے سے چار مویشی چوری کرنے کا الزام لگایا گیا تھا۔ ان کے اور ایک دوسرے شخص کے خلاف پاکستان پینل کوڈ کی ان دفعات کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کی گئی جو چوری اور بددیانتی سے چوری شدہ مال حاصل کرنے سے متعلق ہیں۔ تاہم مویشیوں کے گم ہونے کے ڈیڑھ ماہ بعد ایف آئی آر درج کروائی گئی، اور مدعی نے اس تاخیر کی کبھی کوئی وضاحت نہیں دی۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں کئی خامیاں پائیں۔ اس بات کی کوئی وضاحت موجود نہیں تھی کہ مدعی کو اچانک کیسے علم ہوا کہ درخواست گزار اس چوری میں ملوث ہے۔ مزید برآں، تفتیشی افسر نے تسلیم کیا کہ چوری شدہ مویشی دراصل ایک الگ قانونی شق کے تحت پہلے ہی برآمد کر لیے گئے تھے، جنہیں نامعلوم افراد چھوڑ گئے تھے، اور یہ برآمدگی ایف آئی آر درج ہونے سے بھی کافی پہلے کی بات تھی۔ اس سے اس کہانی کی صداقت پر شبہ پیدا ہوتا ہے جو درخواست گزار
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2015 Cr.C . ( Lahore ) 307 Present: James Joseph , J. MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE --Petitioner versus STATE and another --Respondents Crl . Misc. No. 431-B of 2015, decided on 11.2.2015. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 498--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860) Ss. 381 & 411--Pre-arrest bail--Confirmed--There was a delay of 01½ month in lodging of FIR which has not been explained--It was no where mentioned in FIR and in record that how complainant came to know about involvement of petitioner in present occurrence as according to I.O. present before Court stolen cattle were taken into possession by I.O. u/S. 550, Cr.P.C . left behind by some un-known persons way before registration of FIR--Above mentioned situation has created some doubt on authenticity of prosecution story--Even otherwise IO present before Court has frankly conceded that recovery has already been effected and nothing was left to be recovered from possession of petitioner--Investigation against petitioner was complete-- Challan has been submitted before trial Court where reportedly trial has no commenced so-far--Petitioner is previously non convict and there was no record against him--Offence with which petitioner was charged does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C .--No useful purpose would be served by handing over body of petitioner to police for any further investigation--Bail was confirmed. [P. 308] A Mr. Muhammad Bilal Butt , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Iqbal Hussain Pahore , Advocate for Complainant. Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab , DPG for State. Date of hearing: 11.2.2015. Order Petitioner Muhammad Rafique seeks pre arrest bail in case FIR No. 833/2013 dated 19.12.2013 u/S. 381/411, PPC registered at P.S. Basti Malook , District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that 01½ months prior to the lodging of the FIR four cattle of the complainant were found missing from his cattle-shed. It is further mentioned in the FIR that the complainant came to know of his own that the present occurrence was committed by the petitioner alongwith one Muhammad Shehzad .
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is a delay of 01½ month in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. It is no where mentioned in the FIR and in the record that how the complainant came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence as according to the I.O. present before the Court the stolen cattle were taken into possession by the I.O. under Section 550, Cr.P.C . left behind by some un-known persons way before the registration of the FIR. The above mentioned situation has created some doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution story. Even otherwise the IO present before the Court has frankly conceded that recovery has already been effected and nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Investigation against the petitioner is complete. Challan has been submitted before the trial Court where reportedly the trial has no commenced so-far. The petitioner is previously non convict and there is no record against him. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C . No useful purpose would be served by handing over the body of the petitioner to the police for any further investigation.
5. In view of the above the matter to the extent of petitioner has become one of further inquiry. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2015 stands confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the above mentioned observations are tentative in nature. (A.S.) Bail confirmed