2009 PLP 665 (MLD)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

The petitioner seeks confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.438 of 2008, dated 14-7-2008 registered under section 381-A, P.P.C. at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant are that he had stolen car belonging to the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence took place on 4-6-2008 and the complaint was lodged on 14-7-2008. There is considerable delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and the supplementary statement was also got recorded after the lapse of two months. He further submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no role has been ascribed to him in the F.I.R. and he was involved in this case in the supplementary statement. Police have not been able to recover the stolen car so far. He further argues that prior to petitioner's involvement in this case, complainant had nominated in the supplementary statement, five other persons on whom complainant had suspicion that they had stolen his car and all five persons who were involved in this case on the basis of suspicion had already granted bail by the trial Court. There is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner which can possibly involve him with the commission of offence. He adds that mala fide on the part of the complainant and police stands proved. He lastly submits that the petitioner is previous non-convict and is a respectable business man of Gujranwala and is therefore entitled to be allowed bail. In support of his arguments he has relied upon Muhammad Javed v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1181), Aqeel v. The State (1997 PLR 575) Charles Peter v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 25) and Khalid Javed and another v. The State (2003 SCMR 1419).

4. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been found guilty in police investigation. Recovery is yet to be effected from him. He lastly argues that the petitioner absconded from the trial Court and is therefore not entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. In support of his arguments he has relied upon (2006 PCr.LJ 494 and 2008 PCr.LJ 1604).

5. Learned DPG also opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that stolen vehicle belonging to the complainant is yet to be recovered, therefore, the petitioner be not released on pre-arrest bail. He further submits that there are no mala fide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner with the commission of offence, therefore, no case of pre-arrest bail is made out of the petitioner.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. The petitioner is involved in the supplementary statement after the lapse of two months which casts doubt in one's mind regarding his involvement because prior to that F.I.R. was also lodged one month after the occurrence. Had the occurrence genuinely been taken place then there was no reason for the complainant not to lodge F.I.R. instantly when his car was stolen because normally what happens is that when car is stolen the owner of the car immediately lodges F.I.R. for the reason that police may block all the exit roads to haul up the evidence but in the instant case the complainant had not done so and had waited for one long month to lodge the F.I.R. Over and above the complainant had got recorded supplementary statement two weeks after the lodging of the F.I.R. and no plausible explanation has been given by the complainant in this regard.

7. Five suspected persons who were involved in the theft case by the complainant prior to involvement of the present petitioner, had already been granted bail by the trial Court. This proves the fact that the complainant was not sure regarding the identity of thief. Mala fides on the part of the complainant as well as police are quite evident as he had involved so many people merely on suspicion and same thing had happened with the present petitioner as well. The petitioner is previous non-convict and there is no criminal record of the petitioner.

8. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 23-1-2009 subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M-65/L Bail confirmed.