MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN alias FOUJI vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Hussain alias Fouji seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 507/08 dated 22.11.2008 registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Mian Channu, District Khanewal, concerning an allegation of dacoity and robbery. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is not nominated in the primary FIR, is implicated only through a belated supplementary statement, has had only a nominal recovery effected against him, and the prosecution has failed to establish the possession of the alleged robbed amount during the investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and consequently allowed the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the primary allegations regarding the robbed amount remain unestablished during investigation and recoveries are meager, the case warrants further inquiry, favoring the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not nominated in the primary FIR and implicated only through a supplementary statement?
- Does failure to establish the possession of the allegedly robbed amount during investigation make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does meager recovery compared to the substantial amount alleged in the robbery charge justify granting bail to an accused?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner namely Muhammad Hussain alias Fouji, seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 507/08 dated 22.11.2008 offence under Sections 395/412 PPC registered at Police Station Sadar Mian Channu, District Khanewal. Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is that the petitioner along with co-accused armed with firearm committed docaity and snatched Rs,700,000/- and mobile phone from the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition contends that the petitioner is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in this; though he is not nominated in the FIR yet has been involved in a supplementary statement with mala fide intention; no recovery has been affected from him and if any recovered, that is planted one; the petitioner is behind the bar for the last 17 months and no more required for the purpose of investigation; the charge against him is groundless and the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for post arrest bail.
3 & 4. On the other hand, learned DPG opposes the bail petition; however, he admits that it has not been established during the course of investigation, whether the amount of Rs,700,000/- was in possession of the complainant on the day of occurrence.
5. Heard, record perused.
6. The Police Officer/Investigating Officer, present in Court, states that, only Rs, 10,000/- has been recovered from the petitioner whereas the allegation of robbery is Rs,700,000/-. Mobile phone has also not been recovered from him. The complainant has firstly mentioned in the FIR that he possessed Rs,700,000/- with him but he failed to establish this aspect during the investigation; however, it will be decided after recording of evidence and at this stage, I refrain myself from discussing the case on its merits lest it prejudice the case of either party and, as such, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, this petition for the grant of post arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.