ASIF RAZA vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in Crime No. 285 of 2005 registered under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Baghdadi, Karachi (South), after his bail plea was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of being apprehended at the spot. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that investigation was complete, challan submitted, and no recovery effected. The Sindh High Court held that since the investigation was complete, challan submitted, and no recovery was made despite the alleged spot arrest, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that the absence of recovery coupled with the completion of investigation and submission of challan in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause can make out a case of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether the absence of recovery from an accused arrested at the spot makes out a case of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation is completed and the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
- Does an offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant the withholding of bail when no recovery is effected?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' AMIR RANI MUSLIM, J.--- The applicant was arrested in Crime No,285 of 2005 under section 392 read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Baghdadi, Karachi (South). After arrest of the applicant formal challan was submitted and now the applicant is facing trial. The applicant has moved bail application before the trial Court, which was dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that since the applicant was apprehended at the spot, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no recovery has been effected from the applicant and the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is 10 years and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to bail. As against this. Learned A.A.-G. Opposed the bail application as the applicant along with two other co-accused had robbed the mobile phone. According to him, the other two co-accused made their escape good while the applicant was arrested.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Investigation has been completed, challan has been submitted and recovery has not been effected though the applicant was arrested from the spot and therefore, in my view it is a case of further inquiry. Applicant is, therefore, enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 5 cases
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH vs The STATE 2017 MLD 1155
- MUHAMMAD RASHID vs The STATE 2013 MLD 1282
- KHALIL vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1486
- SHAUKAT ALI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 914
- MUHAMMAD ALAM vs THE STATE 2008 P Cr. L J 76