ABID SHAH vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a criminal case registered against the petitioner under Section 162 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of taking illegal gratification to influence a judicial officer. The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of an eight-day delay in the FIR, the alleged offence not being made out, the complainant's affidavit in his favor, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner's conduct in exploiting his relationship with a judicial officer to deceive the public. The Court, upon reviewing the record, found the petitioner's role to be highly objectionable and detrimental to the reputation of the judiciary. Despite the offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court exercised its discretion to deny bail, holding that the petitioner's conduct and history rendered him undeserving of such relief.
- Can bail be denied in an offence falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the existence of a complainant's affidavit in favor of the accused mandate the grant of bail?
- Section 162, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Abid Shah petitioner after having been imprisoned, through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide No, 148 dated 2-5-2013 under section 162, P.P.C. At Police Station, Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib on the written complaint of Muhammad Riaz on the allegation that he took illegal gratification from the complainant in order to influence Mr. Khawar Rafique, Illaqa Magistrate, Police Station Sadar Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib to get a case decided in favour of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a delay of eight days in reporting the matter to the police; prima fade from the bare perusal of the F.I.R., offence under section 162, P.P.C.
Is not constituted against the petitioner; the complainant has sworn his affidavit in favour of the petitioner and the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, therefore, he may be granted bail.
3. Learned D.P.G. Has opposed the submissions and has argued that it is very unfortunate on the part of the petitioner that as being a relative of a judicial officer, has been deceiving and depriving the people, therefore, such like persons should not be extended discretionary relief notwithstanding the offence alleged falls outside the pale of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments heard. Record seen.
5. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. His role is obnoxious, sordid, spiteful, unpalatable, cardinal-sin and depreciative. He seems to be intractable, invidious, notoriety to the judiciary and does not deserve relief of bail as in the recent past about nineteen days earlier he A has been sent to jail nevertheless the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.