Syed ARIF HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 405 registered under sections 489-B and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the offense allegedly fell under a section not attracting the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and in view of the rule of consistency as a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The Court held that at the bail stage, the case pertained to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes attracting section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner was entitled to bail under the rule of consistency since a co-accused was already on bail.
- Whether an offense under section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage permit converting the consideration from section 489-B to section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 489-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.405 under sections 489-B and 420, P.P.C., dated 30-11-2006, registered at Police Station Shahpur Saddar, Sargodha.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case due to mala fide intention of the complainant as well as the police; that the co-accused of the petitioner has been allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, under the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the same relief, that this case is open to that of further inquiry. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Hafeez alias Feeza v. The State (1999 YLR 1301) that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve the prosecution case.
3. Conversely, learned Assistant Prosecutor-General ,assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the grant of bail contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.
With specific role and he has been declared guilty during the investigation. Therefore, he is not entitled to any relief.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is yet to be decided whether the case against the petitioner falls under the provisions of section 489-B or section 489-C, P.P.C. And whether the accused/petitioner had or did not have the knowledge that the said notes were forged, anyhow, at this stage the case of the prosecution pertains only to the recovery of forged and counterfeit currency notes, which attracts the provisions of section 489-C, P.P.C., which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of sectibn 497, Cr.P.C. Reliance is placed on Ghulam Mustafa v. The State (2005 YLR 2337). The co-accused of the petitioner is already on bail, therefore, under the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the same relief.
5, For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.