GUL REHMAN alias GUL MUSLIM vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case involving charges under Sections 392, 395, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident of theft at a factory where security guards were overpowered and raw materials were stolen. The core legal question was whether the applicant, whose name and description were absent from the F.I.R. and from whom no stolen property was recovered, was entitled to post-arrest bail given the prosecution's claim of connecting him to the offense through a challan involving fifteen accused persons. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the absence of the applicant's name or description in the F.I.R., combined with the fact that the security guards were blindfolded and unable to identify the perpetrators, created a situation requiring further inquiry. The Court established the principle that at the bail stage, while deeper appreciation of evidence is impermissible, a tentative assessment must be conducted to determine if the accused is connected to the offense, and where such connection is doubtful, the case falls under the scope of further inquiry.
- Whether the absence of an accused's name or description in the F.I.R. constitutes grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the scope of evidence evaluation by a court at the bail stage?
- Does the failure to recover stolen property from an accused person entitle them to bail when the prosecution relies on a challan connecting them to the offense?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.- Applicant is arrested in F.I.R No, 223 of 2011, under section 392, 395, 34 P.P.C., Police Station Zaman Town. In the first place applicant approached the learned trial Court for his bail, but the bail application was dismissed per order dated 23-7-2011. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, present bail application has been filed.
2. Facts, as setout in the F.I.R, are that Manager of Integra Auto motives (Pvt.) Company Ltd., who manufactures grills of radiator wherein copper and steel is used. It is stated in the. F.I.R that on 30- 4-2011 complainant received telephone call from Zaman Town Police that an offence has been committed in the factory. It is further stated that after informing the owners of the factory, complainant reached the factory and on checking it was found that locks of the go down were broken and raw material namely Copper 4380 K.G. And steel 30 K.G was missing. The security guard present in the night stated that four armed persons entered in the factory from unknown place and after overpowering the chowkidars tied their hands and blindfolded them. It is further stated that chowkidar was not aware as to which vehicle was brought into the factory for loading and taking away the material stated hereinabove. It is further stated that chowkidar of the factory so also chowkidar of neighboring factory were confined in go down, in such circumstances, F.I.R.
Was lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that neither names of the accused persons have been mentioned nor any description has been mentioned in the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submitted that F.I.R was registered on 30-4.-2011, whereas present applicant was arrested on 28-5- 2011 and from his house only Rs,30,000 were recovered and no stolen articles were recovered from the present applicant. He further submitted that in the F.I.R four persons are alleged to have committed offence, but prosecution has challaned as many as fifteen accused persons in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no material available against present applicant/ accused to connect him with the commission of offence. He further submitted that this is a case where further enquiry is called for Learned counsel further submitted that applicant be enlarged on bail.
4, On the other hand learned A.P.G. Has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that there is ample material with the prosecution which connects the present applicant with the commission of offence. He also submitted that fifteen accused persons have been shown in the challan, because purchaser of the stolen articles have also been cited accused persons. Learned A.P.-d. Submitted that applicant may not be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
6. It is admitted position that neither the name of any accused person is mentioned in the F.I.R., nor the descriptions of any accused person have been shown. It is also admitted position, as per F.I.R, that chowkidars were blindfolded and they did not know in which vehicle accused persons had come and committed offence. At the bail stage deeper appreciation of the record cannot be gone into, but only tentative assessm ent is to be made of the record collected by the prosecution just to find out as to whether applicant/accused is connected with the commission of offence or not.
From the perusal of the record of the case in hand, it appears that this case required further enquiry for the aforesaid reasons in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P: C. Accordingly, present applicant is admitted to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. Bail application is disposed of in the above terms.
Cited by 3 cases
- Imtiaz Khatoon & Shumaila vs The State 2025 SHC 320
- Imtiaz Khatoon Versus State 2026 YLR 554
- Abdul Hadi alias Babul and 2 others vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1521