ABDUL NABI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Abdul Nabi, who was charged under sections 489-A, 489-B, and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged recovery of counterfeit currency notes and chemicals from an 'otaq' (guest house). The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established a prima facie case for the possession and use of counterfeit currency and whether the non-compliance with procedural requirements, specifically the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery, warranted the grant of bail. The Court held that the case against the applicant required further inquiry, noting the absence of independent witnesses as required by section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the lack of evidence that the applicant had used the currency as genuine. The Court further observed that mere possession does not necessarily satisfy the requirements of sections 489-A or 489-B. Consequently, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing that the applicability of the charged sections remained a matter for trial.
- Does the failure to associate independent witnesses from the locality during a recovery violate the requirements of section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does mere possession of counterfeit currency automatically constitute an offence under sections 489-A or 489-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the applicability of sections 489-A, 489-B, and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter for trial or a ground for bail when the evidence is contested?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 489-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 103, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---By this order, I would like to dispose of an application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Filed on behalf of accused Abdul Nabi who is booked in Crime No, 25/2012 Police Station, Kashmore to face his trial under sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C, P.P.C.
2. ' As per contents of F.I.R. Lodged by complainant HC Liaquat Ali Chandio of Police Station Kashmore, allegation against the present applicant is that he along with co-accused namely Shahoo and Bakhat Ali was found in possession of seven counterfeit currency notes and so also chemical used for preparation of forged notes. Raid was conducted in the otaq of co-accused Shahoo where all the three persons along with two unknown persons were sitting. On reaching, police party found the alleged currency notes lying on the earth near the accused.
3. ' Case has been challaned and accused are facing trial in the court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kashmore.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that, co-accused Bakhat whose case is identical to that of present applicant, has been let oft by the police during investigation and his name has been placed in Column No,2 of the challan. He has contended that the alleged offence has taken place in a broad-day-light at 1400 hours in thickly-populated area but no person from public has been joined as mashir in support of his contention he has placed reliance on a case reported as Muhammad Naeem v. The State (2012 YLR 1228). He further adds that simply it is alleged that counterfeit currency notes were found lying on the earth in the otaq of accused Shahoo and nothing is brought on record that the said notes/counterfeit currency notes were used for selling or buying by the present applicant. Therefore, the case of present applicant does not come within the ambit of section 489-B, P.P.C. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Sajjad v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 815) and Zafar Iqbal v. The State (2000 PCr.LJ 834).
5. ' He has further contended that applicability of section 489-A, B and C is to be determined at trial and at this stage its application requires further enquiry. He has contended that the same dictum has been laid down in the case of Sawab Khan v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1351). He prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. ' The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant.
7. It is an admitted fact on record that the complainant had an advance information received on mobile telephone regarding the presence of accused at the otaq of Shahoo and as per contents of F.I.R. The said Otaq is situated in a thickly-populated area but he did not accompany witnesses of the locality. Learned State counsel admits that mashirs of recovery are police official. It appears that the requirement of section 103, Cr.P.C. Has not been complied with. Moreover there is no allegation of any sort against the present applicant that he used the said currency as genuine before any person. Moreover the alleged chemical recovered from the place of wardat has not been sent to any laboratory to ascertain whether said chemical can be used for the purpose of preparing counterfeit currency.
8. ' In these circumstances, the involvement of present applicant requires further enquiry. Moreover, mere possession of the counterfeit currency does not constitute an offence under section 489-A or B, P.P.C. Reliance is placed on a cases of Muhammad Naeem and SaWab Khan (Supra).
9. ' In view of the above circumstances, it is yet to be seen at trial whether the present applicant participated in the commission of the alleged offence and whether the alleged offence comes within the meaning of section 4S9-A, B or. C. Considering all the above facts I admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000. With P.R. Bond in the like amount to the *satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAKIR Versus State 2016 PCrLJN 83