MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Anwar in case F.I.R. No. 32 registered at Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari, under sections 420, 468, 471, 472, 473, and 475 of the Pakistan Penal Code, involving allegations of preparing bogus Inter Branch Credit Advice and defrauding a bank of a substantial amount. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure given the lack of direct incriminating evidence and prolonged incarceration without trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he had been behind bars for over two and a half years without the commencement of his trial, and no incriminating material connected him to the offence apart from an inadmissible or yet-to-be-verified statement of a co-accused. The court laid down the principle that prolonged pre-trial incarceration coupled with the absence of connecting incriminating material renders a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether the unverified statement of a co-accused constitutes sufficient incriminating material to deny post-arrest bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without commencement of trial bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution fails to point out incriminating material connecting him to a financial fraud?
- 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, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Anwar petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,32 registered on 27-1-2006 under sections 420/ 468/471/472/473/475, P.P.C. At Police Station City Burewala, District Vehari.
2. The allegation as levelled in the F.I.R. 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 2 1/2 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 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 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 2-1/2 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 or innocence of the petitioner requires further inquiry within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C., we are inclined to allow his 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.