AYAZ AHMED vs STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case where the applicant sought post-arrest bail regarding allegations of managing fake documents to secure the release of two abandoned vehicles, involving the alleged assistance of court officials. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the applicant was no longer required for further investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the punishment for the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, because the prosecution witnesses were government officials, there was no reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering. Consequently, the Court confirmed the bail, emphasizing that the specific role of the accused and the veracity of the allegations were matters to be determined by the trial court during the trial process.
- Does an offence that does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the fact that prosecution witnesses are government officials a relevant consideration in assessing the risk of evidence tampering for bail purposes?
- Does the completion of the investigation and the submission of the challan render an accused eligible for bail if they are no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 6/9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. Through this bail application applicant seeks his release on bail.
2. Facts of the case are that on 18.07.2012 FIR was registered by Inspector Irshad Ahmed Sadhio, of ACE (South) stating therein that applicant was arrested in Crime No, 198/2012 for the offence punishable under Section 6/9, CNS Act. During interrogation he allegedly disclosed that about 4/5 months back two vehicles Toyota Hilux JY-424 Double Cabin and NH-589 were found abandoned.
3. He managed fake documents and get released both the vehicles from the Court. This offence was committed by him with the active assistance of Ex-Court moharrar ASI Muhammad Yousuf Raza and Court Moharrar Muhammad Afzal.
4. During investigation applicant was arrested, bail application on his behalf was filed but the same was dismissed by the Court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption (Provincial) at Karachi vide order dated 24.08.2012, as such, present bail application has been filed.
5. Heard Mr. Muhammad Akbar Awan, advocate for the applicant and Mr. Ali Haider Saleem, APG for the state, latter opposed the bail application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and he has committed no offence whatsoever as alleged by the prosecution. He further contended that the date of incident is 14.04.2012 while FIR has been registered on 18.07.2012 without any explanation. He also contended that the allegation against the applicant and co-accused is of managed fake documents of two vehicles. No specific role is against the applicant, though the allegations are to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and presently he is no more required for further investigation. He prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.
7. Learned APG for the state opposed the bail application on the ground that the documentary evidence is against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitle for his release on bail.
8. I have perused the file.
9. Registration documents of two vehicles were allegedly managed by the present applicant and co- accused. Applicant was arrested during the investigation and after completion the investigation challan was filed placing the name of co-accused as absconder. Role against the applicant is to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the material witnesses, punishment of the offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. Witnesses of the case are Government officials, therefore, there is no likelihood of tempering their evidenced.
11. After submission of the challan, applicant is no more required for the purpose of investigation, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, hence, this bail application was allowed vide short order dated 24.10.2012 and these are the reasons for the same.