MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs STATE and anothers
The petitioner Muhammad Akhtar sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 139/2014 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Khairpur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur, relating to a disputed tractor transaction and alleged bogus documents. 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. The Lahore High Court held that the offences under Sections 420 and 471 are bailable, the application of Section 468 was doubtful as no forged documents were recovered or placed on record, and the case did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court decided to allow the petition, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and investigation is complete without incriminating material, the case falls under Section 497(2) for further probe, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether offences under Sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code are bailable?
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitle the accused to bail as a matter of right when investigation is complete?
- When does a case warrant further probe under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Akhtar seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 139/2014 dated 14.04.2014 u/S. 420/468/471, PPC registered at P.S.Khairpur Tamewali, District Bahawalpur.
2. Precisely allegations against the petitioner as un-folded in FIR are that complainant has business transaction with the petitioner due to which the petitioner sold a tractor Fiat 480 Model 20.11 bearing Chassis No, 22226549-11-D5, Engine No, 618604 un-registered against an amount of Rs, 575,000/- and the petitioner handed over the said tractor and relevant documents to the complainant which on checking from the concerned department were found to be bogus.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that no such documents as alleged by the complainant were either presented before the 1.0 or were recovered from the possession of the petitioner during the course of investigation. The offence u/S. 420 & 471, PPC are bailable whereas the application of Section 468, PPC is doubtful as no forged documents are on the file from where it could be presumed that the same were forged during the investigation. Even otherwise the said offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant remained unsuccessful in pointing out any material on the file against the petitioner.
The petitioner is behind the bars since 21.04.2014.- No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bar for an indefinite period especially in the circumstances when the investigation is completed and challan has already been submitted before the trial Court where the trial has not commenced so-far. Relying upon the case of Fazal Elahi vs. The State (2004 SCM R 235) the involvement of the petitioner in the instant case requires further probe as contemplated u/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner Muhammad Akhtar is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (One lacs rupees) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.