SADAQAT HUSSAIN SHAH vs The STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed by Sadaqat Hussain Shah seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 392/2014 registered under Sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kundian, District Mianwali, relating to the theft of a vehicle from a parking area. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, his omission from the initial report, his subsequent implication via an unverified supplementary statement, and the applicability of the statutory prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the offence under Section 411 P.P.C. carried a maximum punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause, the investigation was complete, the trial had not yet commenced, and no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration. The key principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the case requires further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, post-arrest bail should ordinarily be granted.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and implication through a subsequent supplementary statement make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the investigation is complete and the trial has not commenced for an offence carrying a sentence outside the prohibitory clause?
- 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.---Through instant petition, petitioner Sadaqat Hussain Shah seeks post arrest bail in case FIR .No,392/2014 dated 18-12-2014 under sections 381-A, 411, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Kundian District Mianwali.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on 12-12-2014 the complainant left his vehicle in the parking of Atomic Energy Commission after handing over the key to the security guard and when he came back on 15-12-2014 the vehicle was missing.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. There is delay of six days in lodging of the FIR, which has not been explained. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor there is direct evidence against him. It has further been noticed that no one has claimed to have seen the petitioner while stealing the alleged vehicle. The petitioner for the first time was involved in this case through supplementary statement recorded by the complainant on 28-12-2014 without specifying his source of information as to how he came to know about involvement of the petitioner in the instant case. Although recovery of alleged stolen vehicle has been effected on the pointation of the petitioner yet provisions of section 411, P.P.C. Are attracted which entail maximum punishment of three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest.
Investigation qua him is complete. Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court where reportedly trial has not commenced. The petitioner is statedly previously non-convict and there is no record against him. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period.
5. For what has been discussed above matter to the extent of petitioner has become one of further inquiry as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and would not effect merits of case of either party.