BROUNO ADAM vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was charged under Section 489-D/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged involvement in counterfeiting currency. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was apprehended with materials including chemicals and black papers purportedly used for counterfeiting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the absence of expert verification regarding the nature of the recovered materials. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to send the recovered items to a laboratory for expert analysis, rendering it unclear whether the materials were capable of being used for counterfeiting. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry'. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that the lack of expert opinion undermined the applicability of the charged offence, and the trial had not yet commenced despite the submission of the challan. The principle established is that where the essential nature of recovered material is not verified by expert opinion, the case against an accused may warrant further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the failure to obtain expert opinion on recovered materials used for alleged counterfeiting entitle an accused to bail?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the prosecution fails to verify the nature of the alleged incriminating material?
- Can bail be granted when the trial has not yet commenced and the material evidence remains unverified?
- Section 489-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This criminal miscellaneous has been filed by the petitioner, seeking bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,134 dated 1-4-2008 registered under section 489-D/34, P.P.C, at Police Station, Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad.
2. Brief facts leading to this criminal miscellaneous are that above mentioned case was registered against the petitioner, on the complaint of Muhammad Riaz S.-I, that on spy information the local police stopped a vehicle, from where four persons were boarded, out of whom two persons made good their escape, while petitioner along with co-accused was arrested and upon search currency, mobile sets, powder/chemical along with black papers of dollar size etc. Were recovered, which they had kept for counterfeiting the currency notes.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner and the provision under which the petitioner has been implicated does not attract in this case. He further argued that material, which was taken into possession at the time of arrest, was not sent to any laboratory for seeking expert opinion and in absence of any expert opinion, it can not be believed that material was helpful for counterfeiting the currency notes/dollars. He added that section 489-D, P.P.C. Is not attracted in this case and maximum it is section 420 P.P.C., which is bailable. He lastly stressed that the petitioner was arrested on 1-4-2008 and since then he is behind the bars.
4. On the other hand, learned Federal Counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that he was arrested at the spot and material was recovered from his possession, whereas, challan has already been submitted in the Court and trial is likely to commence. However, he frankly conceded that material recovered from the petitioner was not sent to any Laboratory nor any expert opinion has been received and in absence of same it cannot be said that offence under section 489-D, P.P.C. Is made out.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 1-4-2008 and since then he is behind the bars. It is admitted position that the material, which was recovered from the petitioner was never sent to any Expert for opinion. The material, which was recovered from the petitioner, were blank papers and a bottle of chemical. Nothing has come on the record to show that material could be used for counterfeiting the currency, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. According to learned Federal Counsel, although challan has been submitted in the Court, but trial has not commenced.
7. In view of above circumstances, without going into merits of the case, I find that the petitioner has made out the case of bail. This application is accepted. The petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond valuing Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.