By means of instant petition Ulfat petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 02, dated 04.01.2011, offence under Section 406, PPC, registered with Police Station Old Anarkali, Lahore.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per consents of the FIR is that by way of committing criminal breach of trust, he stole away vehicle bearing Registration No, NEO 1997, Honda City of the complainant including office keys, certain documents and case book register.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case. Learned counsel next contends that the petitioner is a poor driver of the complainant and the car met with an accident. Due to incapability of the petitioner to get repair the car, he has been involved in the instant case. It is also argued that the petitioner was handed over the car by the complainant himself as such no criminal breach of trust has been committed thereby ingredients of Sttion 406, PPC, do not attract to the facts of the case. Learned counsel vehemently submits that besides the instant case, on account of his mala fides, the complainant lodged another case against the petitioner Bearing FIR No, 10/2011, dated 04.01.2011, offence under Section 411, PPC, regarding the same occurrence at Police Station Phool Nagar. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is previous non-convict and behind the bars since the date his arrest. Moreover, his person is not required by the police for further investigation; therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is well nominated in the FIR, who while committing criminal breach of trust, stole away car of the complainant alongwith certain documents. Learned counsel next submits that there is no on the part of the complainant for falsely involving the petitioner in the instant case. It is next argued that the petitioner has been found guilty during the course of investigation; therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage.
5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. Nevertheless the petitioner is named in the FIR, however, I am afraid this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case of the petitioner to the extent of grant of bail is made out or not. There is no denial to the fact the petitioner has been driver of the complainant as such entrustment of vehicle to him is not a special circumstances. The version taken by defence/petitioner is that the vehicle met with an accident and on account of incapability of repairing the vehicle he has been involved in the instant case. The prosecution version is quite contrary to that as put forth by the defence. The authenticity of the versions of both sides shall be determined during the course of trial after recording the evidence, as such at present case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry, Moreover, it is worth mentioning that maximum punishment for the offence against the petitioner is seven years and keeping in view the dictum of law of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others Vs. The State (PLD 1995 S.C. 34) in cases not punishable with death or imprisonment for life or ten years, grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. The petitioner, who is previous non-convict, is behind the bars since the date of his arrest (i,e, about 9 months) and no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation.
7. For the foregoing reasons this Court is persuaded to hold that sufficient grounds exist to accept this petition. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.