MUHAMMAD SAEED vs The STATE and others
This petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged possession of substandard fertilizer, registered under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973 and Section 18(1) of the Punjab Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1973. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a fertilizer dealer, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged offence. The Court observed that there was an unexplained delay of over two months in lodging the First Information Report. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was merely a dealer and not the manufacturer of the substandard fertilizer, and that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, holding that incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The judgment reinforces the principle that pre-arrest bail may be granted where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and where there are significant unexplained delays in reporting the crime.
- Does the possession of substandard fertilizer by a dealer fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an unexplained delay of two months in lodging an FIR be a ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is a fertilizer dealer liable for the manufacturing of substandard fertilizer when they are not the manufacturer?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 6(1), Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act 1973
- Section 18(1), Punjab Fertilizer (Control) Order 1973
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this petition filed in terms of section 498 Cr.P.C, the petitioner seeks his pre-arrest bail in case bearing .F.I.R. No,480 of 2013, dated 3-12-2013, offence under section 6(1) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973 and 18(1) of Punjab Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1973, registered with Police Station Pir Mehal, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Allegation against the petitioner, in brief, as per contents of the F.I.R., is that on 29-11-2013, the complainant along with officials of Agriculture Department raided the shop of the petitioner and took samples weighing 300 grams from the fertilizer SSP 181, lying therein, which was sent to the quarter concerned for chemical analysis. According to laboratory report the fertilizer was found to be substandard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely involved in the case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with mala fide intention.
Further contends that there is delay of more than two months in lodging of the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered. Also contends that the petitioner is a fertilizer dealer and he received sealed bags of fertilizer from one Muhammad Nadeem, salesman of the company. It is argued that the petitioner has no nexus with the crime alleged, otherwise, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is further argued that the petitioner is not involved in such like offence.
4. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the crime report with specific role and substandard fertilizer was recovered from his possession. Further submits that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief, which can be granted sparingly.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab and gone through the record available on file.
6. There is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., however, this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether case against him to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. There is delay of more than two months in lodging of the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered. Moreover, the petitioner is a fertilizer dealer and he was found having substandard fertilizer but he is not the manufacturer of the pesticide. The offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not attract prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose.
7. In sequel to above, the instant petition is accepted. Resultantly, ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 16-12-2013 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.