NASIR ALI vs THE STATE
This is a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 60/02 registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the complainant and witnesses have allegedly compromised and disowned the prosecution version. The Lahore High Court held that the compromise and the refusal of witnesses to support the prosecution case create a further inquiry into the matter under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Furthermore, since the offence carries a punishment of up to 7 years, it does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where witnesses disown the F.I.R. and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the case falls for further inquiry making the accused a fit case for bail.
- Does a compromise between the accused and the complainant warrant the grant of post-arrest bail in non-compoundable offences?
- Does an offence carrying a punishment of seven years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the retraction of witnesses from their previous statements create a case of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---This bail application has been filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. For the grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,60/02, dated 11-7-2002 registered at Police Station, ACE, Jhang, District Jhang under section 161, P.P.C. Read with sections 5(2), 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Briefly allegation against the petitioner is that he received Rs,30,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant for getting a job for complainant's brother in one of the Government Departments.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has already compromised with the petitioner and witnesses have also sworn affidavits whereby they have disowned the version given in the F.I.R. The witnesses are also present in the Court to support the affidavits.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has been found guilty after a proper investigation. The petitioner also remained a proclaimed offender. She further submits that witnesses have supported the prosecution version through their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. She also submits that the offence is not compoundable.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
The petitioner was arrested on 25-1-2005 and has already served nearly 5 months in jail. Since complainant and witnesses have refused to support the prosecution case that creates a doubt in the prosecution story and the matter requires further inquiry. The offence alleged against the petitioner provides 7 years' punishment, therefore, the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. As a result of above discussion, this bail application is allowed subject to petitioner's furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned
Cited by 1 case
- Ch. RIASAT ALI Versus IMTIAZ BEGUM 2016 MLD 1144