Syed ISRAR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Syed Israr Ahmed seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 130 dated 25-3-2006, registered at Police Station Gulgasht, Multan, under sections 420 and 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner is entitled to bail where the F.I.R. omits the time of occurrence, no financial loss is caused to the complainant, and the State does not oppose the bail application. The Court holds that the petitioner has made out a case for post-arrest bail since section 420 is bailable, section 419 is not attracted due to the absence of cheating, the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the investigation is complete, and the State consents to the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail is appropriately granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, statutory elements of the charged crime are missing, and the prosecuting agency does not oppose the relief.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does section 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 apply when the element of cheating is missing from the transaction?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the State does not oppose the application and the investigation is complete?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,130, dated 25-3-2006 for offence under sections 420/419, P.P.C., Police Station Gulgasht, Multan.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with his co-accused approached the complainant who deals in the business of property and introduced himself as representative of Warid Telecom Company and enquired about a plot in order to affix tower of the company. After having selected a plot the petitioner demanded survey fee and other expenses amounting to Rs,30,000 but the complainant became suspicious whereupon the petitioner and the other co- accused were handed oyer to the police.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the F.I.R. Did not disclose the time of occurrence; that the offence under section 420, P.P.C. Was a bailable offence whereas the provision of section 419, P.P.C. Were not attracted to the case of the petitioner as no loss had been caused to the complainant by the petitioner who was behind the bars since 25-3-2006. Further contended that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not required for any purpose by the police, hence the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State does not oppose the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly no time of the occurrence has been mentioned in the F.I.R. And no loss of any kind has been caused to the complainant by the petitioner. Section 420, P.P.C. Is a bailable offence whereas provisions of section 419, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the case of the petitioner as it essentially involves cheating and impersonation and the element of cheating is missing. As the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the petitioner is behind the bars since 25-3-2006, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail particularly in view of the fact that the same is not opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
7. Resultantly, the petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Bail .