TARIQ MAQSOOD vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 54/05 dated 13-2-2005 registered under sections 392, 458, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was not nominated in the F.I.R., no weapon was recovered from him during the investigation despite allegations, and he had been incarcerated for a considerable period without progress in the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the continued incarceration of the petitioner without trial progress, coupled with the lack of recovery and non-nomination in the F.I.R., served no useful purpose for the prosecution. The court laid down the principle that post-arrest bail may be granted where the accused is not named in the F.I.R., no recovery remains to be made after the conclusion of the investigation, and the trial is subject to prolonged delay without progress.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not nominated in the F.I.R. and no recovery is made during investigation?
- Does prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.---Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No . 54/05 dated 13-2-2005 under sections 392/458/411, P.P.C. P.S. Gaggo District Vehari.
2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is not named in the F.I.R; that although in the F.I.R. He was alleged to be armed with fire-arm yet during investigation no such weapon was recovered from him, as such he has become entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. The petitioner is behind the bars since 27- 11-2006 without there being any progress in the trial; that according to the F.I.R. The petitioner was shown to be armed with fire-arm but during investigation no such weapon has been recovered from the petitioner. In this view of the matter after conclusion of investigation when the trial has commenced, nothing is to be recovered from him, further incarceration of the petitioner without any progress in the trial would not serve any useful purpose to the prosecution. Resultantly this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to 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 Deputy Registrar (Judl) of this Bench. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.