2003 PLP 2757 (YLR)

Sh. Arshad Ali for the State. Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai for the Complainant. Abdul Ghaffar, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.260 dated 14-7-2002 under section 381, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Multan Cantt.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that Mst. Rabia Kanwal, the daughter of the petitioner was a maid servant of the complainant. He used to come to see her on every Sunday. On 14-7-2002, she at the behest of her father took away cash amount Rs.80,000 and gold ornaments weighing 10 Tolas from the almirah of his (complainant) house after opening lock of the same. She handed over the amount and ornaments to him (petitioner). He thereafter got her disappeared. The complainant went to him and enquired about his daughter. He confessed to have stolen away the amount and the ornaments and promised to return the same within 2/3 days but ultimately refused.

3. It has contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the brother of the complainant had tried to put off the Shalwar of his daughter and the complainant in connivance with him has got registered the case against him with mala fide intention to save his skin; that there is seven days' delay in lodging the F.I.R. without any plausible explanation; that he has requested to the Investigating Officer to record his version but he had not done so; that he filed application to the learned Sessions Judge, Multan with the same request and it was assigned to Mr. Javaid Mehmood Sindhu, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who has directed to the S.D.P.O. to place on record the affidavits and statement which he intended to produce before the Investigating Officer but the same has not been done so far; that he is a Railways employee; that he is a previous non convict; and that in the event of refusal of pre-arrest bail to him, he will suffer irreparable loss.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F. I. R.; that cash amount Rs.80,000 and gold ornament weighing ten Tolas have been stolen away by his daughter Mst. Rabia Kanwal from complainant's house and she had handed over the same to him and he firstly had promised to return the same to him but later on refused; that his version has been recorded by the Investigating Officer but he has been found involved in the matter; that there is no malice on the part of the complainant in his involvement in the case; that he has fabricated the story of putting off the Shalwar of his daughter by the brother of the complainant to save his own skin; and that recovery of the stolen property is to be effected from him.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

6. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Allegedly his daughter Mst. Rabia Kanwal had stolen away the cash amount Rs.80,000 and gold ornaments weighing ten Tolas from the almirah in the house of the complainant and handed over the same to him (petitioner) and he had confessed it and promised to return the same but later on refused. There is some explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. On query, by the Court, the S.-I. has submitted that he (petitioner) had joined the investigation and his version has been recorded and it is wrong to say that his version has not been recorded. The question of recovery of the stolen amount and ornaments is involved. It is settled proposition in law that pre-arrest bail normally cannot be extended where object of recovery is likely to frustrate. Hence, he does not deserve the relief pre-arrest bail. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. H.B.T./A-835/L Petition dismissed.