MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs STATE
This is a criminal petition wherein Muhammad Anwar sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 32 dated 27.1.2006, registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, and 475 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari, on allegations of preparing bogus Inter Branch Credit Advice and defrauding a bank of a substantial amount. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory delay in the commencement of trial and the lack of direct incriminating evidence connecting him to the crime. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner had been incarcerated for over two and a half years without the commencement of trial and no incriminating material existed apart from the inadmissible or yet-to-be-verified statement of a co-accused, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial combined with the absence of direct connecting evidence warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether prolonged incarceration without the commencement of trial entitles an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Does the statement of a co-accused alone constitute sufficient incriminating material to deny bail?
- When does a case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 473, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 475, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Anwar-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 32 registered on 27.1.2006 under Sections 420/468/471/472/473/ 475 PPC at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari.
2. The allegation as leveled in the FIR against the petitioner is that he along with his other co- accused prepared bogus Inter Branch Credit Advice (IBCA); on the basis of which' they drew an amount of Rs, 44,90,000/- from the Bank and as such, while defrauding the Bank as well as the account holder, caused a loss of huge amount to the. Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no incriminating evidence available on record against the petitioner except the statement of co-accused, which is inadmissible in evidence. As such, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry. Further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 21/2 years and his trial has not commenced so far.
4. On the other hand, learned APG for the State has vehemently opposed this petition, contending that the petitioner has caused a huge loss to the bank through fraud, as such, he is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. After considering the arguments and having gone through the record, it is noted that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two and a half years but his trial has not even commenced so far. As far as the allegation for withdrawal of amount against bogus cheques is concerned, learned law officer has failed to point out any incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. As regards the statement of his co-accused, the veracity veracity of the same would be determined by the learned trial Court. In view of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 21A years without the trial being commenced so far and that no incriminating material being available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence except the sole statement of his co-accused, the veracity of which, as noticed earlier, is yet to be determined, the question as to the guilt of innocence of the petitioner requires further inquiry within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., we are inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of rupees five lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.