TANVEER SHAH vs THE STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Tanveer Shah seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 399 dated 11-5-2011 registered under sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Jaranwala, District Faisalabad, concerning the alleged recovery of a stolen car. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and evidence for the major charge is lacking. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the offence did not attract section 381-A at this stage, fell outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period with no further need for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., and further investigation is not required, the grant of bail is normally a rule and refusal an exception.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused is no longer required for the purpose of investigation?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Tanveer Shah, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,399 dated 11-5-2011 registered under sections 381-A and 411, P.P.C. At Police Station City Jaranwala District Faisalabad. The allegation against the petitioner is that stolen car of the complainant was recovered from his possession.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R; that there is no evidence against the petitioner which could attract the provisions of section 381-A, P.P.C. And the recovery of the vehicle on the pointation of the petitioner is fake; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 8-6-2011 and no more required for the purpose of investigation; that the petitioner has been acquitted in all other cases which were registered against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certified copies of the judgments passed in said cases.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is fully involved in this case and the car was recovered from his possession; that the petitioner is also involved in three, other cases of similar nature. However, learned D.P.G. Concedes that so far there is no evidence on the record which could attract the provisions of section 381-A, P.P.C. Qua the petitioner. But at the same time states that there is sufficient evidence which attracts the provisions of section 411, P.P.C. Against the petitioner.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
5. As stated by the learned D.P.G., so far there is no evidence on the record against the petitioner, which could attract the provisions of section 381-A, P.P.C. And at the most the provisions of section 411, A P.P.C. Are attracted against the petitioner. The petitioner has been acquitted in all the three cases registered against him as is evident from the certified copies of the judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The is behind the bars since 8-6-2011 and no more required for the purpose of investigation. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (rupees five lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.