AMJAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kassowal, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was implicated merely on suspicion, the main co-accused had been exonerated by the police, the recovered articles were of a general nature, and the trial had not yet commenced despite the petitioner having been in jail for nearly eight months. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that where evidence is circumstantial or based on general recoveries and trial has been delayed without commencement while the accused has already spent a considerable period in custody, further incarceration is not warranted.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is implicated on the basis of suspicion only?
- Does the recovery of articles of a general nature warrant the continued incarceration of an accused pending trial?
- Can prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial be a ground for the grant of bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, I.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No,211 of 2005, dated 16- 7-2005, registered under sections 457, 380 and 411, P.P.C. At Police Station, Kassowal, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly according to F.I.R. When the complainant woke up at about 4-00 a.m., on the morning of 25/26-6-2005 he found the household things scattered all over the house. On search he found missing, one electric iron, a tape-recorder, a torch, two golden rings, each Rs,11,400 ear-rings and some other golden jewellery articles etc. With the help of tracker search was initiated to discover thieves. The complainant suspected Irshad co-accused, petitioner and one Riaz alias Rajoo.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion only and there is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner.
He further submits that main accused Irshad son of Hanif has already been exonerated by the police with whom joint recovery of an electric iron and torch was planted on the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And recovery has been effected from him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, complainant and State.
6. The record shows that there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of an offence. The recovery of electric iron and torch has been shown against the petitioner, the said articles are of general nature. The petitioner has already been in jail for nearly eight months, the trial has not commenced so far. For the above reasons, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,70,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Raja YASIR RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 491