MUHAMMAD AFZAL alias JANI vs The STATE and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 317/2014 registered under sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Defence-B, Lahore, concerning the theft of a car. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., was implicated through a supplementary statement without a disclosed source of information, and that the alleged recovery fell under Section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing that offences outside the prohibitory clause where further inquiry is warranted generally favour the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and is implicated through a later supplementary statement?
- Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When can a case be considered one of further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' JAMES JOSEPH, J.---Muhammad Afzal alias Jani son of Sabir Ali, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 317/2014 dated 20-5-2014 under sections 381-A/411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Defence-B, Lahore.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as folded in the F.I.R. Is that the complainant who is employee of bank "Al-Falah T-Block DHA phase-II Lahore went to her office where she parked her car outside the office and when she came back after finishing her work, the car was missing.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And there is no direct evidence available on the file against him. The petitioner along with one Mumtaz was involved in the present case by the complainant through a supplementary statement got recorded by her on 10-6-2014 in which no source of her information has been mentioned. The evidentiary value of such supplementary statement would be adjudged by the learned trial court after recording of evidence. Mumtaz co- accused has already been allowed post arrest bail by the learned trial Court. Although recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner but the same falls under section 411, PP.C., Which entails a maximum punishment of three years which do not fall within the prohibitory' clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Reliance is placed upon the case-law titled as "Tanveer Shah v. The State" (2012 M LD 1742).
5. In view of the above, the matter requires further probe into the guilt of the petitioner as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,200,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature.