MUHAMMAD QAMAR vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Qamar, in connection with an F.I.R. registered for offences under sections 454 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, committed theft at the complainant's house. The petitioner contended that he had been falsely implicated, had no prior criminal record, and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court examined whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since the petitioner had no previous criminal record and the prosecution failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the refusal of bail for non-prohibitory offences, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The Court established the principle that bail should generally be granted in cases involving offences outside the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, absent exceptional circumstances.
- Does the offence under section 454 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail where the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and there is no prior criminal record?
- Section 454, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Muhammad Qamar petitioner seeks after-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,382 dated 19-9-2006 for offences under sections 454/380, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalpur.
2. The prosecution story, as narrated in the F.I.R. Lodged by Hakeem Zafar Iqbal rings weighing 1-1/2 tolas, four bangles weighing 2 tolas and one mobile along with cash amounting to Rs,20,000 was found missing. Siraj Ahmad and Ghulam Yaseen P.W. Told that at about Zohar time, they saw Qari Fayaz Abasi, Tayab Bhatti along with petitioner coming from the house of the complainant. Hence the present F.I.R.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is behind the bars since 22-9- 2006, that no witness from the locality was associated at the time of alleged recovery; that the petitioner has no previous record; that he has been falsely involved by the complainant on account of some dispute of money; and that the offences with which the petitioner stands charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed the application. It is contended that co-accused of the petitioner are still absconding; that ears-ring identified by the complainant are recovered from the petitioner and that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 454, P.P.C. Is punishable with three years but if trespass is coupled with theft, the sentence may extend to 10 years. Prima facie, it is yet to be established that petitioner was connected with the actual theft or not which can only be determined after recording of evidence.
Since there is no previous record of the petitioner and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that the learned Additional Prosecutor General has not been able to point out any exceptional circumstance for refusal of bail in offences which otherwise do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., accordingly he is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.