HAZRAT WALI vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Hazrat Wali, following the rejection of his bail requests by the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner was charged in an FIR initially registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was later converted to Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences and the evidentiary status of the case. The Court held that the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the maximum sentences for the alleged offences are less than ten years. Furthermore, the Court determined that the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Court granted bail, affirming the principle that in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and its refusal is an exception.
- Does an offence carrying a maximum sentence of less than ten years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the case requires further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Hazart Wali petitioner has filed the instant application for bail as his request for bail has been refused by Judicial Magistrate No,7 Peshawar as well as Muhammad Asim Imam, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Peshawar.
2. Arbab Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate counsel for the petitioner has submitted written arguments, which were perused. Mr. Obaidullah Anwar, Additional Advocate General was heard at length on behalf of the State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that Haji Muhammad Taqi son of Haji GuI Muhammad, resident of Haji Camp City Town Peshawar lodged an F.I.R. In Police Station Chamkani, District Peshawar on 17-6- 2007 at 11-00 hours to the effect that he is the owner of Trailer No,LSB-9486 and one Khan Muhammad son of Haji Yaseen is a joint owner in this trailer as they had purchased the same on partnership basis. The trailer is being plied by Khan Muhammad driver. On 15-6-2007 the driver had parked the trailer at 12-00 noon at Admore Petrol Pump situated on G.T. Road Peshawar. The next morning the driver informed the complainant that the trailer is missing and the complainant charged Khan Muhammad the co-partner for the commission of the offence and initially the case was registered under section 406, P.P.C. For criminal breach of trust. Subsequently on 25-6-2007 the complainant recorded his statement tinder section 164, Cr.P.C. And charged the accused for the commission of the offence and consequently the offence was changed from section 406 to sections 381-A/411, P.P.C.
3. The accused-petitioner submitted application to the Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar for his release on bail, which was rejected on 3-10-2007. Then he moved an application before Additional Sessions Judge-III, Peshawar, which too was rejected on 1-11-2007. Now the petitioner has moved the present application for his release on bail.
4. It is apparent from the record that the complainant has initially charged a co-partner for the commission of the offence and after ten days has changed the story and charged the present accused-petitioner.
5. Without touching the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case of either party, offence under section 381-A, P.P.C. Carries a maximum sentence of 7 years while under section 411, P.P.C. Maximum sentence is three years. Although section 411 has been included in the F.I.R.
Subsequently and it finds mention in the application to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but both the sections of law involve a sentence of less than ten years, which does not come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And furthermore the case is of further inquiry into the guilt of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has made out a case for bail because in such like cases the grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, I accept this bail application and consequently Hazrat Wali is released on bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs The State and another 2023 PCRLJ 100
- WAHID GUL vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2155