MUHAMMAD KAZIM vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 418, registered under sections 392, 458, 395, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged robbery at the complainant's residence. The petitioner was not named in the initial F.I.R., nor was he subjected to an identification parade, rendering his involvement a matter requiring further inquiry. The court observed that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as his guilt requires further investigation. Although a C.D. was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, the court noted that the offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Considering the petitioner is a previous non-convict and has been incarcerated, the court held that he is entitled to the concession of bail. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when not named in the F.I.R. and not subjected to an identification test?
- Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a case qualify for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Kazim through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,418, dated 13-9-2003 originally registered under sections 392/458, P.P.C. With Police Station, City, Hafizabad, District Hafizabad. Later on the police have substituted the offence under section 395, P.P.C. For one under section 392, P.P.C. And also added the offence under section 411, P.P.C in the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the night between 12/13-9-2003 at about 2-00 a.m. Three unknown persons, the description of whom have been given therein, while one of them was armed with gun had entered into the house of the complainant. They awakened him and forcibly took away his Honda Motorcycle No,4066/HZ along with its documents, Colour T.V. 21" and C.D. Therefrom. They while leaving had tied hands and threatened him to keep quiet.
3. After hearing the learned counsel of the parties and perusing the available record, I find that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He has not been put to any identification test. The question of his involvement in the case thus needs serious consideration. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Allegedly, the C.D. Was recovered from him on 27-11-2003.
5. This, if may be so, attracts an offence under section 411, P.P.C. The same is not covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.