Muhammad Aslam And Another vs The State And Another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Naeem, who were charged under Sections 392, 411, 413, and 414 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Lala Musa City. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the main occurrence and that the offence, if any, was limited to receiving stolen property under Section 411, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The Court held that, prima facie, the petitioners were not involved in the main occurrence and that the application of Section 413 was subject to further inquiry. Finding that the offence primarily attracted Section 411, which carries a maximum sentence of three years and falls outside the prohibitory clause, and noting that the investigation was complete, the Court granted bail to the petitioners.
- Does an offence under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the investigation is complete and the accused is not involved in the main occurrence of the crime?
- When does an allegation of receiving stolen property under Section 413 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 413, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 414, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWARUL HAQ, J. - Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Naeem alias Buo petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 382, dated 29.9.2008 registered under Sections 392/411/413/414, P.P.C. At Police Station Lala Musa City, District Gujrat.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only allegation against the petitioners are receiving stolen property and they are Challaned under Sections 413 and 414, P.P.C., that according to the investigation they were not involved in the main occurrence; that the offences under Sections 413 and 414, P.P.C. Are not attracted and the only penal provision which can be .Attracted is Section 411, P.P.C. And the same offence carries a maximum sentence of three years; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and learned counsel for the complainant while opposing bail application contend that offence under Section 413, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. However, learned Deputy Prosecutor- General after consulting the record confirms that both the petitioners are not involved in the main occurrence and according to the result of investigation they are only involved in receiving stolen jewelry; that the petitioners are previously non-convict, and all the accused who allegedly had committed the main offence have already been arrested.
4. Heard.
5. Prima facie both the petitioners pre not involved in the main occurrence and the only allegation levelled against them is in respect of receiving stolen property only The application of Section 413, P.P.C. Needs further inquiry in the absence of any previous record against the petitioners, hence prima facie only Section 411, P.P.C. Is applicable and the offence carries a maximum sentence of three yeas that does not fall within the prohibitory clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The Challan in this case has been submitted and physical custody is no more required for the purposes of investigation.
6. In view of the above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt. This petition, is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.