SAJID MEHMOOD vs THE STATE
The petitioner Sajid Mehmood sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 533 dated 2-10-2003 registered under sections 457, 380, and later 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, concerning house trespass and theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail considering the allegations, delay in lodging the F.I.R., recovery of stolen articles and an unlicensed pistol, injuries sustained during the incident, and applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., the recovery stood effected from him, the offence under section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and challan had been submitted. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that an accused named in the F.I.R. with recovery against him for an offence within the prohibitory clause is not entitled to post-arrest bail at that stage.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when named in the F.I.R. for an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 along with recovery of stolen property?
- Does an offence under section 457 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Sajid Mehmood through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 533, dated 2-10-2003. Under sections 457/380, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kuthiala Sheikhan, Tehsil and District Mandi Baha-ud-Din. Later on the police have added section 411, P.P.C.
In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 21/22-9-2003 Irfan alias Chano, Shafqat alias Shaffu, Sajid (petitioner) and Muhammad Riaz Mochi while armed with pistols broke open the roof of the house of the complainant and had entered the same and committed theft of his tape, T.V. Emergency light and Seiko-5 wrist watch therefrom.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that there is delay of ten days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the story of the prosecution is improbable as if P. Ws. Had seen them taking away the stolen articles, then why they did not chase them; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. That he is behind the bars for the last about four months and previous non-convict; and that challan has been submitted in the Court but so far there is no progress forward-his trial.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the grounds that he is named in the F.I.R.; that the recovery of stolen articles and an unlicensed pistol has been effected from him: that he while jumping from the roof of the house of the complainant had received injuries, which is evidence of the fact that he had committed the trespass there and had stolen away the household articles therefrom; and that the case is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. .1 have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Allegedly, he alongwith his aforesaid co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention had broke open the roof of the house of the complainant and thereafter had stolen way the aforesaid articles therefrom. The recovery stands effected from him. The offence under section 457, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
The challan also stands submitted in the Court.
7. Hence, I do not find him entitled to bail at this stage. The petition, therefore, is dismissed.
8. However, it is made clear that the above observations are tentative in nature. The same shall not influence the mind of the trial Court in any manner. It shall decide the case independently on its own merits.