TAHIR AHMED ZAHID vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case where the applicant was implicated by the S.D.O. HESCO WAPDA (East) Division, Thatta. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail considering that the police had failed to submit a challan and the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that since the police had not submitted the challan, the applicability of the charge to the applicant was subject to evidence, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and there was no allegation of misuse of bail, the interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the challan has not been submitted, and no misuse of the bail concession is shown.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the police has not submitted the challan?
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause warrant the confirmation of bail in the absence of misuse of the concession?
- Whether the applicant is entitled to confirmation of bail when no sufficient evidence is collected to immediately connect him with the crime?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MAQBOOL AHMED AWAN, J.---On 12-11-2008, the interim bail before arrest was granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond of the like amount.
2. ' Today the matter was fixed for confirmation.
3. ' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the complainant, the S.D.O. HESCO WAPDA (East)
4. Division, Thatta; that no sufficient evidence was collected by the Prosecution to connect the applicant; that the offence for which the applicant is charged would not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that till today the Police has not yet submitted the challan. He has relied upon the case-law reported in PLD 1995 SC 34 and 1993 PCr.LJ 446.
5. ' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the grant of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record. It appears that the applicant was granted bail on 12-11-2008 and till today, the Police has not submitted the challan. It is yet to be seen at the time of evidence whether the applicant has committed the offence for which he has been charged. The punishment for which the applicant is charged would not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. There is no such allegation that the applicant has misused the concession of bail granted to him. In view of this, I confirm the bail of the applicant granted earlier on the same terms and conditions.