Muhammad Rafiq vs The State And Other
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 26/2012, registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Chowk Azam, involving allegations of vehicle snatching. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the non-compoundable nature of the alleged offences, particularly given the complainant's express consent and the recovery of the vehicle. The Court observed that the complainant had filed an affidavit stating no objection to the grant of bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the case required further probe and inquiry. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that while an offence may be non-compoundable, the complainant's consent, combined with the requirement for further investigation into the allegations, constitutes sufficient grounds to grant post-arrest bail to an accused person.
- Can post-arrest bail be granted in a non-compoundable offence if the complainant consents?
- Does the recovery of the stolen vehicle justify the grant of bail in a case involving Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 26, dated 20.1.2012 under Sections 395, 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station, Chowk Azam.
2. Brief facts narrated in the F.I.R, are that on the night between 16th/17th January, 2012 the complainant alongwith others were coming home in the vehicle and when they reached near the place of occurrence a Bedford truck intercepted and stopped them. The accused forcibly snatched the vehicle and left them in the deserted place. Thereafter, the said vehicle was recovered.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit sworn to toy the complainant wherein it is stated that the complainant has no objection for the grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fake F.I.R, and no offence was committed by the petitioner as the vehicle in question was recovered.
5. The complainant has consented for the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner. Although offence under which the petitioner has been implicated is not compoundable yet it requires further probe and inquiry; therefore, I am inclined to allow bail to the petitioner.
6. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post- arrest arrest bail subject to furnishing of 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.