Hazrat Saeed vs The State
This criminal petition arises out of post-arrest bail sought by the petitioner, Hazrat Saeed, accused in a case registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the recovery of a tampered vehicle intercepted by police. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of admissible connecting evidence and the applicability of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the confession made before police is inadmissible, prosecution lacked sufficient connecting evidence, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that bail in non-prohibitory offences is the rule and rejection the exception, and that an extra-judicial confession before police carries no evidentiary value.
- Is a confession made before a police officer admissible against an accused in criminal proceedings?
- Does the failure to claim custody of a recovered vehicle on superdari negate the right to further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does an offence fall outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 making bail a rule?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 550, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. - Hazrat Saeed petitioner was arrested in case F.I.R. No. 632, dated 28.9.2010 for the offences under sections 420, 468, 471, PPC, registered at police station Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi on the complaint of Tassaduq-ur-Rehman, A.S.I. Police Station, Gujar Khan, District Rawalpindi.
2. The allegation contained in the F.I.R. Is that the notice on suspicion, intercepted a vehicle at Missa Kaswa l, -Check Post and took the same into possession under Section 550, Cr.P.C. Which was being driven by one Sultan Zaib and Hazrat Saeed ('petitioner') occupied its front seal both the accused failed to furnish any document, showing their title or lawful possession qua the vehicle in question; the automobile "Carry Dabba" PZ-791 was referred to Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and after chemical treatment, it was found that the chasis number of the vehicle had been cut and replaced by another iron sheet bearing chasis No. 934851 which had been welded at the relevant place after removal of the original chasis number.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely roped in this case under ulterior motives of the complainant and the allegation alleged against him is false; the text of the F.I.R. Does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence against the petitioner, there is no direct or indirect connecting evidence against the petitioner and the prosecution case does not traverse beyond speculations; the petitioner's case constitutes need for further inquiry into his guilt as contemplated by Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Relies upon "Raqias Shah v. The State"
(2004 P.Cr.L.J. 186).
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed grant of bail to the accused with the contention that the petitioner was member of a gang involved in the theft and disposal of the stolen vehicles and had close liaison with his co-accused the driver of the vehicle;, both of them had conspired to sell the stolen/doctoral vehicle; the petitioner has not applied for seeking the custody of the vehicle on superdari which is a strong circumstance hinting at the dubious character of the petitioner. Lastly contends that the car lifting crime is on the rise so the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The petitioner was travelling in a "Suzuki Carry Dabba" bearing registration No. PZ-791, being driven by Sultan Zaib, when intercepted by the police at a barrier on 23.9.2010. It was taken into custody under Section 550, Cr.P.C for determining the credential thereof. It was referred to Forensic Science Laboratory, Islamabad and on chemical treatment, it was found by the Laboratory that the plate bearing original chasis number had been cut, removed and replayed by fake chasis No. 934851 which was engraved on the replaced chasis sheet. Despite repeated queries, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has failed to point out any connecting evidence against the petitioner except that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the police at the time of his arrest. The admission of guilty before a police officer of the rank howhighsoever, is not an admissible piece of evidence nor can it be deemed as a viable and worthwhile circumstance against the accused, allegedly making such statement. The prosecution at the moment, is clearly short of evidence against the petitioner.
7. The above-said vehicle after having been taken into custody by the police is parked at police station, Gujar Khan the custody whereof has not been claimed so far by the petitioner or his co- accused on superdari. Whether or not the petitioner claims to be the owner of the above-said vehicle or seeks the custody thereof on superdari, is a circumstance which opens the Case of the petitioner to further inquiry into his guilt within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The offence with which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such-like offences has always been deemed to be a rule and rejection thereof, an exception. I do not find any exceptional circumstances on the basis of which it could be inferred that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
8. Consequently, the petitioner .Is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,0, 000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.