MAKHDOOM MUHAMMAD MASOOD vs STATE & another
This is a criminal petition filed by Makhdoom Muhammad Masood seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 26/2012 registered under Sections 269, 272, 273, 420, 468, 471, and 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and other related statutes concerning slaughter houses. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner, a veterinary doctor not named in the FIR and from whom no incriminating material was recovered during investigation, is entitled to post-arrest bail when his further detention serves no useful purpose. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that the petitioner's culpability requires determination by the trial court after evidence, that no recovery was made from him, and that his continued incarceration is unnecessary as investigation is complete and he poses no risk of absconsion. The key principle laid down is that where an accused government servant is not named in the initial report, no incriminating material is recovered from him, and investigation is complete, further detention is unwarranted and bail should be granted pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the crime report and no incriminating material is recovered from him during investigation?
- Whether the absence of risk of absconsion and completion of investigation justify granting post-arrest bail to a government servant?
- Does the lack of direct recovery from a public servant warrant further pre-trial incarceration when culpability is subject to recording of evidence during trial?
- Section 269, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 272, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 273, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
By means of instant petition the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 26/2012, dated 14.06.2012, offence under Sections 269, 272, 273, 420, 468, 471, 161, PPC, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 3/7 Slaughter Act 1963, 1965, 1970/1992, 2002/3, S. No, 3(2) B, 2(I) S (4.5), lodged at Police Station ACE Circle, Sargodha.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that Muhammad Azeem Warraich, CO/ACE, Sargodha, conducted raid under the supervision of learned Special Judge Magistrate, Sargodha upon the official slaughter house, Sargodha as well as private slaughter houses set up by the butchers and on their shops, during which it was found by the raiding party that at the official slaughter house butchers were slaughtering animals and were themselves affixing seals thereon. The raid party also took into possession the seal alongwith pad of the concerned doctor/incharge of the slaughter house which was being used by the butchers. The raiding party also took into possession about 100 mounds meat, of sick, dead animals and water adulterated for destroying the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with malafides. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the crime report; rather he has been implicated in the instant case after conducting a frivolous inquiry. It is argued that the allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a government servant/ veterinary doctor and no incriminating material is available on the record to connect him with the commission of the offence alleged against him and if he is admitted to bail, there is no apprehension of his abscondence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.
4. Contrarily learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this bail petition with full force with the averments that the petitioner is named in the crime report and sufficient incriminating material is available on the record in the shape of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to connect him with the commission of offence alleged against him.
5. Arguments advanced at the bar heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. The petitioner is not named in the crime report. During the course of arguments, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that the butchers were found themselves affixing the stamp of the petitioner on the meat, however frankly conceded that nothing incriminating material could be recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation. In such circumstances culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence. Moreover, the petitioner is a government official and if he is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconsion. Reference in this regard can be made to the reported case of Firdaus Ahmad Khan Vs. The State (2004 M LD 208). The petitioner is stated to be previous non- convict/non record holder and behind the bars since the date of his arrest. Moreover, his person is no more required by the police for further investigation.
7. In sequel to above, this petition is ACCEPTED and the petitioner is admitted to bail after-arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.