JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Javed Iqbal, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 175 dated 9-6-2004, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged misappropriation of 800 maunds of grain entrusted to him. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner should be admitted to bail. The reasoning was based on the fact that the investigation against the petitioner was complete, he was no longer required for further investigative purposes, and his continued incarceration would serve no beneficial purpose. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the relevant Magistrate.
- Does the offence of misappropriation under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Should bail be granted when the continued incarceration of the accused serves no beneficial purpose to the prosecution?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---Petitioner Javed Iqbal through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,175, dated 9-6-2004 under section 406/420, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Chak Bedi, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is misappropriation of800 maunds which was kept with him as trust and promised to pay Rs,3,00,000 in lieu thereof.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and falsely been implicated in this case, that there is a sufficient delay in lodging the F.I.R. Which casts doubt; that the dispute between parties is of civil nature; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and that the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
3A. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the instant petition.
4. I have considered the submission made from both the sides with help of available record.
5. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and is no more required for further investigation.
Investigation qua him is complete. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose or advance the case of prosecution. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.