ALLAH DITTA vs STATE & another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 29 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Drahma, District D.G. Khan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, including delay in lodging the FIR, lack of an identification parade, nomination through a supplementary statement without disclosing the source of information, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the maximum sentence for the offence fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case warranted further inquiry, the petitioner had been in judicial custody for a significant period with no immediate prospect of trial conclusion, and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. The court laid down the principle that the evaluation of bail must focus on the material available on record for the specific case and that offences not falling squarely within the prohibitory clause generally favour the grant of bail when further inquiry is warranted.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when nominated in a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information?
- Does an offence carrying a maximum sentence outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. warrant the grant of bail as a general rule?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 29 dated 21.1.2011, registered under Sections 392/411 PPC at Police Station Drahma, District D.G. Khan.
2. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned.
DPG for the State and perused the record.
3. As per allegations contained in the FIR Fayyaz driver of the complainant was going to Sanawan on Tractor No, 789/DGN on 20.1.2011 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was intercepted by three persons who were equipped with fire-arms and they were on motorcycle. They deboarded the driver Fayyaz from the tractor and took away the same along with Fayyaz. He was left in the sugarcane field after tying his hands and folding his eyes. Thereafter he was released. The FIR was lodged with a delay of one day. No identification parade was held. The petitioner was nominated in the supplementary statement on 30.1.2011 but no source of information was disclosed. Although the petitioner was alleged to be involved in five other cases but the Court has to evaluate the material on the record in the present case. The petitioner is in the judicial lock up for the last about seven months and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future. He is no more required by the police. He is not a previous convict. The bail cannot be withheld as punishment. The maximum sentence which can be awarded by the learned Judicial Magistrate is seven years as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So on this score the case of the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. It is a matter of further inquiry. The recovery of the tractor was allegedly effected from the petitioner but it is yet to be proved that he committed the offence under Section 392 PPC. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 2.00,000/-(Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like