TAYYAB AHMAD alias Makki and another vs THE STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 134 of 2008, registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an alleged robbery. The petitioners sought bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration since August 2008, the lack of progress in the trial despite the submission of the challan in January 2009, the absence of any recovery in the instant case, and the fact that no prosecution witnesses had been examined. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' involvement in another case where recoveries were made and arguing that the petitioners were not entitled to bail. The Court observed that the petitioners had been in custody for a significant period without trial progress, and the recovery effected in a separate case could not be utilized against them in the present matter. Holding that the petitioners could not be detained indefinitely as a form of punishment, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that mere registration of other cases does not justify bail refusal absent prior conviction.
- Can recovery effected in a separate criminal case be used as grounds to deny bail in the current case?
- Does the mere registration of other criminal cases against an accused constitute a valid ground for refusing bail?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely when no progress has been made in the trial and no prosecution witnesses have been recorded?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 356, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' HAFIZ ABDUR REHMAN ANSARI, J---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,134 of 2008 dated 23-8-2008 registered at Police Station Jalilabad, Multan, under sections 392.411, P.P.C. On the complaint of Zeshan Mehmood complainant.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that in the night between 17/18-8-2008 he was going from his house towards mosque when Tayyab Ahmad Makki and Younas accused/petitioners along with Zia Ahmad alias Chand while riding on a motorcycle, waylaid the complainant and his companion Yasir Azad at gunpoint and snatched three cell phones and cash amount of Rs,600 from the complainant and friend, hence, this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially case was registered against the petitioners and other co-accused under section 356/34, P.P.C. But later on., offences were converted into sections 392/411, P.P.C.; that the petitioners were on physical remand for 3 days but no recovery was effected from them; that the petitioners were arrested in this case on 7-8-2008; that the petitioners are in the judicial lockup since 11-9-2009; that challan in this case has been submitted in the trial Court on 19-1-2009; further submits that not a single witness is recorded by the learned trial Court.
4. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail on the ground that recovery was effected from them in case F.I.R. No,135 of 2008 registered with Police Station Bohar Gate; that the occurrence is day light; that the petitioner is found guilty in the police finding; that the offences does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
6. Initially case was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused under section 356/34 P.P.C. But later on, offences were converted into sections 392/411 P.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars since 7-8-2008. Although challan is submitted in the Court but no progress has been made and no prosecution witness is recorded. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. Only recovery was effected in F.I.R. No,135 of 2008 which was registered at Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan. There is 7 days unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. False implication of the petitioners cannot be ruled out. Prosecution submitted the challan on 19-1-2009 since that there is no progress and no statement of any prosecution witnesses is recorded. The petitioners cannot be kept behind the bar as a punishment. That in spite of best efforts of the Court prosecution evidence could not be recorded. The petitioners were allowed bail in case F.I.R. No,135 of 2008 dated 23-8-2008 vide order dated 15-9-2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan. Recovery was effected from the petitioners in that case is not useful for the prosecution in this case. It cannot be used against the petitioners in this case. The petitioners are previously non-convict. Mere registration of other case, is no ground for refusal bail unless and until someone is convicted and sentenced in other cases.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.