MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Asghar, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 411, 458, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged offences and the evidentiary record. The petitioner argued that the ingredients of Section 458 were not met and that the sentence for Section 380 did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the application, citing the prohibitory clause and the recovery of evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was no longer required for further inquiry. The Court emphasized that if the accused is granted bail and later found guilty, he can be sentenced, whereas if he is innocent, his pre-trial detention cannot be compensated. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further inquiry?
- Does the absence of the ingredients of a specific offence, such as Section 458 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, influence the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the potential sentence for the charged offence is less than the threshold specified in the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.---Through this application, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 467 of 2008, dated 30-8-2008, registered under sections 411/458/380, P.P.C. At Police Station Pacca Larran, District Rahim Yar Khan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in facts and circumstances of the case as disclosed in F.I.R., section 458 is not attracted as the ingredients of the above section are missing. In the offence under section 380, P.P.C., sentence involved is as 7 years.
3. The learned DPG has seriously opposed the bail application that offence with which one petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibition contained in subsection 1 of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further argued that recovery has been effected from the petitioner and there is a sufficient evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.
5. Co-accused of the petitioner Mst. Hameeda Bibi filed an application for grant of post arrest bail which has since been allowed by the learned trial Magistrate vide order, dated 20-9-2008. The case of co-accused Mst. Hameeda Bibi is covered under proviso to section 497, CR.P.C. Therefore, her case stands on different pedestal. However, vide paragraph No,6 of the order of the learned Trial Magistrate he recorded observation that the ingredients of section 458 P.P.C. Are not existing in the present case, whereas the sentence involved under section 380 is short of 10 years or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16-9-2008. Admittedly, the persons of the petitioner are not required for investigation. If the accused is allowed bail and ultimately strong evidence becomes available on the record at the stage of trial, there is a remedy that he can be convicted and sentenced and if ultimately he is acquitted of the charge, his detention and loss occasioned cannot be compensated by any scale. In this view of the matter, I am fortified in my view by Nasir Mehmood Khan v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 159) and Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State (PLD 1988 SC 1). I have come to the inescapable conclusion that this is a fit case in which bail should be wanted to the accused. Petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.