MUHAMMAD BILAL KHAN vs STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 237/2012, registered under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the theft of gold ornaments and cash from the complainant's house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was nominated in the F.I.R. and from whom stolen property was recovered, was entitled to bail, particularly considering the argument that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting his nomination in the F.I.R., the recovery of stolen gold ornaments upon his pointation, and the fact that his information led to the arrest of another accused and further recoveries. The Court emphasized that the offence carried a punishment of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment, thereby precluding bail at this stage. The petition was dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to expedite the proceedings in accordance with the revised judicial policy.
- Does an offence punishable with fourteen years rigorous imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the recovery of stolen property upon the pointation of an accused sufficient to deny bail in a theft case?
- Can an accused nominated in an F.I.R. who provides information leading to further arrests and recoveries be granted post-arrest bail?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 237 dated 30.9.2012 registered under Sections 457/380/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Moachh, Mianwali.
2. The case was registered on the statement of one Muhammad Yar in respect of an occurrence which took place in his house on 16.9.2012 at 1:45 p.m. When he woke-up he saw locks of boxes were broken. Later on it transpired that huge quantity of gold ornaments, cash and other things were stolen. Suspicion was shown against the petitioner and the case was registered on 20.9.2012.
The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2012. During investigation the petitioner got recovered certain gold ornaments and on his information another accused Zia was arrested and even he got recovered stolen gold ornaments.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the occurrence remained unseen and at the most the petitioner is liable under Section 411, P.P.C.; that the offence under Section 379, P.P.C. is punishable five years R.I. and does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and as such the petitioner is entitled to bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned law officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that as in this occurrence theft was committed so punishment for the offence is fourteen years R.I.; that on the pointation of the petitioner stolen gold ornaments were recovered and such a circumstance corroborates the prosecution case in which suspicion was already shown against him and on his information other accused was arrested and even he got recovered stolen gold ornaments and as such involvement of the petitioner in this case is evident. The petitioner is not entitled to any exception.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Later on the petitioner was arrested and on his pointation stolen gold ornaments were recovered. He also provided information regarding another accused who was arrested and even on his pointation certain other gold ornaments were recovered. The offence is punishable with 14-Years R.I. At this stage no ground for bail is made out. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. Anyhow, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to conclude the same within the period in accordance with revised judicial policy.