ABID HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 42 dated 3-3-2006, registered under sections 379, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, involving allegations of breaking locks at a sale depot, preparing forged documents, and taking away C.P.R. and Indent books. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was declared innocent during the investigation, no recovery was made, and the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was declared innocent during investigation, no recovery was effected, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, section 420 is bailable, and section 468 is non-cognizable, further incarceration would amount to punishment. The court laid down the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment in non-cognizable and non-prohibitory offences where the accused was declared innocent during investigation and no recovery was made.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused has been declared innocent during police investigation?
- Does an offence under section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code warrant withholding of bail when it is non-cognizable and outside the prohibitory clause?
- Can an accused be kept in jail indefinitely pending trial when no recovery has been effected from him?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,42, dated 3- 3-2006 registered 'under sections 379, 420 and 468, P.P.C. At Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with others came to the sale Depot and after breaking the locks, prepared forged documents and upon their return, took C.P.R. Book No,7 and Indent Book No,435 etc. Along with them and. It was transpired that the forged C.P.Rs,, were prepared whereby it was shown that 1,81,323 Kgs. Sugar cane has been supplied to the Mills priced at about Rs,4,65,000.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely with mala fide intention; that during the investigation, the petitioner was declared to be innocent, that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution; that the offences under sections 420 and 468, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the petitioner while there is no evidence of offence under section 379, P.P.C. Against the petitioner; that no recovery has been effected against the petitioner; that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 5-3-2006.
4. On the other hand, the learned D.P.G. Has opposed the bail application.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. During the investigation, the petitioner has been declared innocent. There is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is no evidence of the offence under section 379, P.P.C. Therefore, the same is not attracted to the petitioner. Section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable. As the offence under section 468, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable, bail cannot be withheld until the guilt of the petitioner is proved at the trial. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Abdul Qudus v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 430. The petitioner is behind the bars since 5-3-2006 and he cannot be kept in jail as punishment.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of R.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.