Dubai criminal court dismisses power bank theft allegation, denies return order

The Dubai criminal court dismissed the allegation that Faris Rahman stole Hessa Al Nuaimi’s power bank and denied the prosecution’s request for its return. The prosecuting authority, acting on Hessa’s complaint, had sought a finding of guilt and recovery of the item, valued at around AED 180, without requesting a particular sentence.

The court held that the prosecution had not proved dishonest taking or established that Faris still possessed the power bank and could return it. Faris was not found guilty on the evidence presented; no sentence or monetary award was made.

The central evidence was a WhatsApp screenshot supplied by the defence. It showed Hessa asking Faris to bring back the power bank the next day, his agreement to do so after his shift, and her reminder that he had made the same promise the previous day.

The court found that the exchange supported an inference that Faris had the item when the messages were sent and that its return was expected. However, it did not establish how he obtained it, whether he had permission, or whether he acted dishonestly at that time. An agreement to return the item was not an admission of theft.

The judgment noted that the screenshot had no separate verification of authenticity or context. Even accepting its contents as accurately reproduced, its wording did not prove the disputed taking. Repeated presentation of the same screenshot did not add independent evidence.

The prosecution’s descriptions of Hessa’s complaint and denial of permission were submissions, rather than direct testimony from her or a produced complaint independently establishing those facts. Faris’s claim that she lent him the item was also unconfirmed, but he was not required to prove that explanation: the prosecution retained the burden of supporting each required criminal element with reliable evidence.

The return request failed on a separate evidentiary gap. The screenshot ended before any confirmation of a handover, and there was no direct testimony or other evidence showing the item’s current location. Hessa’s reported lack of possession did not establish that Faris still held it. Applying the recorded rule that relief must match what the evidence establishes, the court declined to order its return.

The prosecution argued that Faris’s promise to return the power bank confirmed possession and amounted to an admission that he had taken it. It maintained that Hessa had never permitted him to use or borrow it, and that the missed promise and her continued lack of the item showed non-return.

During the hearing, the prosecution emphasised recovery of the power bank rather than punishment. It argued that Faris would have denied knowledge of the item if he had not taken it.

Faris maintained that Hessa had lent him the power bank, while acknowledging that the messages did not confirm how he first obtained it. He accepted that the screenshot recorded an earlier missed promise and did not prove a later handover. He argued that delay alone could not establish theft, and that uncertainty about present possession also prevented a return order.

The dispute concerned a power bank allegedly removed from Hessa’s desk in a shared Dubai office. Hessa had not witnessed its removal. The complaint account described two requests for its return and her belief that the delays indicated Faris wanted to keep it.

The hearing concluded without further evidence resolving the original transfer or the item’s later whereabouts. The dismissal and refusal of recovery therefore rested on insufficient proof, not a finding that the lending account was true or that the power bank had been returned. Both questions remained unresolved by the recorded outcome.