SAEEDULLAH and another vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused petitioners, Saeedullah and Zaman, who were charged in FIR No. 31 of 2008 under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the alleged theft of two buffaloes. The petitioners had previously been denied bail by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory limitations on bail. Upon reviewing the record, the Court tentatively assessed that the petitioners could, at most, be held liable under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is not subject to the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and that the maximum sentence for an offence should not be the sole determinant for bail if the record suggests a lesser punishment is likely. Consequently, the bail application was accepted, and the petitioners were ordered to be released upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Is an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 hit by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should the maximum sentence provided for an offence be the sole factor in determining bail eligibility?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This is an application for bail filed by the accused/petitioners Saeedullah and Zaman, sons of Zakim Khan, in case FIR No, 31 dated 27.2.2008 of Police Station Paroa, District D.I. Khan, initially registered under Sections 457/380 PPC with subsequently added Section 411 PPC as their efforts for the same relief have been proved abortive before the learned lower Courts vide orders dated 7/3/2008 and 13/3/2008 respectively.
2. According to the FIR lodged by the complainant Hafeezullah Khan on 27/2/2008 at 1110 hours on the last night he alongwith his children were asleep in the house while the cattle were tied in the cattle room. When he woke up in the evening, he saw the doer of the cattle room opened and on entering there found missing a buffalo of black colour and one of a white colour, both valuing ninety thousands but none was charged for the offence. However, subsequently during the investigation of the case, the accused/petitioners were booked for the offence who after their arrest applied for bail but could not succeed in the lower fora and hence this petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record.
4. From perusal of the available record it reveals that prima facie, the accused/petitioners at the most, could be booked for an offence under Section 411 PPC, the punishment, wherefor provided under the law is not hit by the prohibition contained under Section 497 Cr. P.C. and is bailable.
Similarly, it is not the principle of law that the maximum sentence provided for an offence should be kept in mind while granting bail to the accused if the Court on the data discernable from the record conies to the conclusion that no maximum punishment could be awarded to the accused/petitioner, the concession of bail could be extended to him in the given circumstances.
Thus while tentatively assessing the case of the accused/petitioners, it goes out of the embargo contained under Section 497 Cr. P.C. and is held to be of further inquiry.
5. Consequently, this application is accepted and the accused /petitioners are directed to be 'released on bail provided they furnish bad bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rs, one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of llaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local. reliable and men of means.
Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.