ZAHOOR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's rejection of a bail application filed by a Sub-Engineer accused of offenses under Sections 409, 461, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving the misappropriation of government property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the prolonged delay in completing the investigation and submitting the trial report. The Supreme Court observed that although the FIR was registered as far back as 7-12-1978, the police had not submitted even an incomplete challan, and an audit was still ongoing to determine the exact value of the alleged stolen property. Converting the petition into an appeal, the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner subject to furnishing required bail bonds. The Court laid down the principle that undue delay in completing investigation and failure to submit a challan justify granting bail, reserving the prosecution's liberty to seek cancellation upon completing investigation.
- Does long delay in completing an investigation and submitting a challan justify the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can the Supreme Court grant post-arrest bail while reserving the prosecution's liberty to apply for cancellation after investigation is completed?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 461, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Zahoor Hussain, Sub-Engineer, Stores, Public Health Engineering Department, Lahore, is accused alongwith Yahya Ghauri, Haji Muhammad Sharif and Rehmat Ali for an offence under section 409/461/468/471, P. P. C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for misappropriating a considerable number of P. V. C. Pipes belonging to the aforementioned department of the Government. His bail application was rejected by .The High Court vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition. Notice was issued to the State. Mr. Ijaz Ali, A. O. R. Is present for the State, alongwith the Investigating Officer.
2. ' We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.
0. R. For the State. Investigating Officer was also present.
3. In reply to the contention of the petitioner's counsel, the Investigating Officer admitted that even an incomplete challan has not been committed in the case although the F. I. R. Was lodged as far back as 7-12-1978 and secondly that an audit is being conducted to determine the exact value A of the P. V. C. Pipes which were removed from the Government Store. In this view of the matter we consider this to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. We, therefore, convert the petition into as appeal and accept it. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs, 2,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Faisalabad.
4. ' It may, however, be mentioned that, if so advised, the prosecution would be at liberty to apply for the cancellation of bail after the completion of the investigation and submission of the challan.