MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs STATE and antoher
This is a criminal petition filed by Muhammad Hassan seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 45 of 2010 registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5/2/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the tainted currency notes were recovered from another individual and the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition, holding that the prosecution failed to substantiate that the person from whom the recovery was made was an official attached to the petitioner, thereby making the case one of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, pretrial detention cannot be used as a form of punishment.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the recovery of marked currency notes was effected from a third person rather than the accused himself?
- Does an offense under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the circumstances of this case?
- Can an accused be kept in jail for an indefinite period as punishment when they are no longer required by the police for investigation?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5/2/47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Hassan seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 45/2010 dated 16.10.2010, under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5/2/47, PCA registered against him at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR recorded on the statement of the complainant Muhammad Shafique are that his brother, namely, Muhammad Siddique sold one acre of land against a consideiation of Rs, 7,00,000/- to him and when he contacted Muhammad Hassan Patwari Revenue Halqa 3/10-L, Tehsil Sahiwal for the mutation, he demanded Rs, 54,000/- as Government dues as also bribe.- The Government dues are too small, but the said Patwari has refused to enter mutation without bribe, which he did not want to give him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the currency notes of Rs, 50,000/- bearing the marks of the Magistrate have not been recovered from the petitioner rather from another person, namely, James Masih. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for bail.
4. Learned ADPP has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that James Masih is Chowkidar of the petitioner and he was found in the office of the Patwari. The case has been registered against the petitioner as well as the said James Masih, who is also behind the bar.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ADPP and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the recovery of marked currency notes of Rs, 50,000/- has not been affected from the petitioner rather from -another person, whose name is James Masih. It has been alleged by the prosecution that James Masih is an official of revenue department and attached with the petitioner as Chowkidar, therefore, recovery affected from him connects the petitioner with the commission of offence, as he was acting on behalf of the petitioner. But in support of this contention, learned ADPP has failed to produce any document showing James Masih as an official of the Revenue Department, which has made the petitioner's case that of a further inquiry. More- over, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is no more required by the police, therefore, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as punishment.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to bail, and this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.