RANJHA vs STATE and another
This criminal petition was filed under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the offence charged, Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, had been deleted, leaving only a bailable offence. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the initial First Information Report and was only implicated through a supplementary statement based on hearsay, without any clear evidentiary link. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and the allegation of mala fide intent by the complainant. Holding that the remaining charge under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that an accused charged with a bailable offence is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of right, particularly where the prosecution's case rests on weak, hearsay-based supplementary statements.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when charged with a bailable offence?
- Can a supplementary statement implicating an accused be considered sufficient for denying bail when the accused was not named in the initial FIR?
- Does the deletion of a non-bailable offence from the FIR entitle the accused to bail for the remaining bailable offences?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 320, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition filed under Section 498, Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Ranjha seeks pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 176/2015 dated 27.01.2015 for offence under Section 322, PPC (since deleted) Section 320, PPC registered at Police Station Factory Area District Lahore.
2. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant inspire of being informed about the fixation of the case by the police official present in Court.
3. Arguments have been heard and the record
4. On 21.04.2015 Section 322, PPC was deleted and the petitioner now stands charged only under Section 320, PPC which is bailable. As the petitioner has been charged with an offence which is bailable he would be entitled to grant of bail in terms of law laid down in Allah Bachaya & 3 others vs. The State 2001 PCrLJ 1082 and Muhammad Jehangir vs. State PIA 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1046. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and was subsequently implicated with the commission of offence by the complainant while getting his supplementary statement recorded. According to the complainant he was informed by his uncle that the offence has been committed by the petitioner, however, he failed to state as to how and from whom his uncle found out that the offence infarct was committed by the petitioner and none else. There is nothing on the record to establish that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents. It has vehemently been asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner with mala fide intention and ulterior motives.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and ad-interim pre-arrest bail earlier allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 15.04.2015 stands confirmed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.