ABID HUSSAIN vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 42 dated 3.3.2006 registered under Sections 379, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Karor, District Layyah. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was declared innocent during the investigation, no recovery was made from him, and the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for grant of bail, noting that he was declared innocent during investigation, there was a delay in lodging the FIR, no recovery was effected, the offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, Section 420 is bailable, and Section 468 is non-cognizable where bail should not be withheld as punishment. The court laid down the principle that an accused cannot be kept in jail as punishment when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and he has been declared innocent during investigation.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused has been declared innocent during the police investigation?
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right unless exceptional circumstances exist?
- Whether bail can be withheld as punishment for a non-cognizable offence whose guilt is yet to be determined at trial?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 42 dated 3.3.2006 registered under Sections 379, 420 & 468 PPC at P.S. Karor District Layyah.
2. According to the FIR, 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 CPR Book No. 7 and Ident Book No. 435 etc. along with them and it was transpired that the forged CPRs were prepared whereby it was shown that 1,81,323 KG 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 FIR, for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution; that the offences under Sections 420 and 468 PPC are not attracted to the petitioner while there is no evidence of offence under Section 379 PPC 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 DPG 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 FIR. 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 PPC therefore, the same is not attracted to the petitioner. Section 420 PPC is bailable. As the offence under Section 468 PPC 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 vs. The State (2002 P.Cr.L.J. 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 Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in. the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.