MAZHAR HUSSAIN and another vs THE STATE
The petitioners, Mazher Hussain and Azhar Hussain, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 282 of 2007 registered under sections 186, 452, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jauharabad District Khushab, involving allegations of interfering with public functionaries, snatching and tearing government records, and issuing threats. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the non-recovery of the allegedly destroyed public record. The court held that the non-recovery of the record cast doubt on the bona fides of the FIR, and since the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail should be granted as a rule in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The application was accordingly allowed, admitting the petitioners to bail upon furnishing appropriate security bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the non-recovery of allegedly destroyed public record affect the bona fides of the F.I.R. for the purpose of bail?
- Are exceptional circumstances required to refuse bail for offences falling outside the prohibitory clause?
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Petitioners Mazher Hussain and Azhar Hussain seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 282 of 2007, dated 30-5-2007 under sections 186, 452, 506, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Jauharabad District Khushab.
2. Precisely, the allegations levelled against the petitioners as per F.I.R. Are that they committed highhandedness by interfering in the official duty of public functionaries i.e. Patwari by entering into their office, while armed with respective weapons, snatched the Government/ public record from Patwari and torn up and also extended threats of murder to the said officials. Hence, this case.
3. It is contended that the present case has been got registered against the petitioners at the instance of Brig. Ahsan, who is relative of the petitioners and civil litigation is going on between the parties in District Khushab. It is further submitted that a false allegation of destroyed the official record was levelled against the petitioners, as no such destroyed record was recovered by the police from the place of occurrence; that the offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG has opposed this application. However, he is not in a position to show from the record that any destroyed public record was recovered by the police from the place of occurrence.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Non-recovery of the public record, which was allegedly destroyed by the petitioners, prima facie speaks volumes about the bona fide of the contents of the F.I.R. The offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail in such cases should be granted as a matter of rule, however, in exceptional circumstances can be refused. No exceptional circumstances could be pointed out by the learned Law Officer. This application is accordingly allowed, petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.