MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking anticipatory bail in case F.I.R. No. 198 of 2003 registered under sections 427 and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar, District Layyah. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the charged offences fall outside the prohibitory clause, no recovery has been effected, and they have been declared innocent during police investigation. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient reasons existed to treat the case as one of further inquiry into guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court established the principle that pre-arrest bail is rightly confirmed where the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, no incriminating material connects the accused to the crime, and police investigation finds them innocent and in lawful possession of the disputed property.
- Are petitioners entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does being declared innocent during a police investigation constitute sufficient ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry into guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioners have sought for the relief of their anticipatory bail in a case F.I.R. No,198 of 2003, dated 4-9-2003 registered under sections 427/379, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, District Layyah on the grounds that they have been falsely implicated in this case; that the offences complained are not applicable against the petitioners nor the same fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and they have been declared innocent during the investigation, therefore, they are entitled for concession of bail.
2. The learned State counsel has strongly opposed the petition.
3. Heard both the parties. Record perused.
4. Admittedly the offences complained do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Apart from that prima facie there is no material available against the petitioners to connect them with the crime complained. Moreover they have been declared innocent during the investigation conducted by the local police vide Zimni No,29, dated 17-12-2003 recorded by Atta Ullah, 5.-I. To this effect that the petitioners are owner in possession of the property in dispute and no offence is made out against them. In view of the above discussion and without going into the merits of the case, there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioners is that of further inquiry into their guilt and falls under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order, dated 2-12-2003 is hereby confirmed.