ABDUL JALIL vs THE STATE And Another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Abdul Jalil in relation to case F.I.R. No. 56 dated 11-6-2010, registered under sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 30 of the NADRA Ordinance 2002. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that he was not nominated in the F.I.R., was implicated through a co-accused's statement, and that forensic verification of alleged forged stamps was pending. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no recovery was made from his person, verification reports were awaited, and trial progress was minimal. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is implicated via a co-accused's statement without direct recovery from his person and pending verification of forensic evidence, coupled with protracted incarceration without trial progress, bail ought to be granted following established precedents.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is not nominated in the FIR and is implicated solely on the statement of a co-accused?
- Does the absence of recovery from the personal search of the accused warrant further inquiry into his guilt under criminal law?
- Whether protracted incarceration without substantial progress in the trial entitles an accused to the concession of bail?
- Section 255, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 258, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 259, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 260, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 472, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 473, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 474, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 475, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 30, NADRA Ordinance 2002
ORDER MUHAMMAD QASIM, J. Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.56 dated 11-6-2010 under sections 255, 258, 259, 260, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475 and 109, P.P.C. Read with section 30 NADRA Ordinance, 2002 registered with Police Station FIA, Multan.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely involved in this case on the statement of co accused, otherwise, there is no evidence against him to connect with the commission of the offence. Further argued that nothing was recovered from the personal search of the petitioner. Lastly, it is argued that petitioner is behind the bars without any progress in the trial.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner is not nominated in the. F.I.R. And has been involved in this case on the statement of his co-accused, the evidentiary value of which shall be seen during trial. Nothing has been recovered from the person of the petitioner and alleged recovery of forged stamps, were found lying in the files kept in the window in the office of the petitioner. This piece of evidence required further inquiry about the guilt of the petitioner. Furthermore, the alleged recovered stamps have been sent to the concerned department for verification whether these are forged or not and so far there is no report to this effect. Even otherwise, there is no allegation that petitioner had prepared those forged stamps., The petitioner is behind the bars but there is no substantial progress in the trial. In such like offence the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case "Fazal Ellahi and another v. The State" (2004 SCM R 235), allowed bail to the accused, considering that accused were in custody, investigation had been completed and further detention was held to be of no use to the prosecution. Respectfully following the above dictum of the apex Court, this petition is allowed and as a necessary consequence the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction A of learned Special Judge Central/Sessions Judge, Multan..
Cited by 1 case
- YAR MUHAMMAD and 4 others vs THE STATE 2011 P Cr. L J 1838