TAHIR RASHEED alias JAVED AHMED alias BILLA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 421 dated 13-8-2004, registered under sections 420, 468, 471, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Batala Colony, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that the only allegation was the recovery of a motorcycle, there was no evidence regarding the preparation of forged documents, and the applicable offences fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, keeping the petitioner in jail indefinitely would not advance the prosecution case. The court laid down the principle that where offences fall outside the prohibitory clause and continuous incarceration serves no useful purpose, bail should be granted. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the petitioner admitted to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does indefinite incarceration of an accused advance the prosecution case when lacking sufficient incriminating evidence?
- Whether bail should be granted under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when it falls outside the prohibitory clause.
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this application the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.421, dated 13-8-2004 registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 411_ P P C. At Police Station, Batala Colony, District, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no evidence against the petitioner for preparation of forged document; that from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. No offence under section 420. P.P.C. Is made out and that offences under sections 468 and 471, P.P.C. Are non- cognizable and that the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.0 C.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail. He contends that the petitioner has committed heinous.Offence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The only allegation against the petitioner is that motorcycle was recovered from his possession but there is no evidence against the petitioner for preparation of forged documents. The offence under section 411 falls outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner in jail for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.