ABDUL QADOOS vs The STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 1165 of 2015 registered under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Airport, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the delay in the FIR, substitution of his name through a supplementary statement, lack of recoveries, completion of investigation, and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner has remained incarcerated without recovery or further utility to the investigation. The Court laid down the principle that in offenses not falling within the prohibitory clause, grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, making further inquiry applicable where circumstances warrant.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when an offense 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 substitution of an accused's name via a supplementary statement make out a case for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete, challan has been submitted, and no recovery is to be made from him?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. Abdul Qadoos, the petitioner, has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,1165/15 dated 19.11.2015 under Sections 496-A, P.P.C., Police Station Airport, District Rawalpindi.
2. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of ten days in the registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant. The name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR rather his name has been replaced with Imran Asif alias Yasir Shah through supplementary statement. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that on 09.11.2015 he along with his co-accused abducted the wife of the complainant Usman Farooq Kayani for illicit intercourse. During the investigation of this case the petitioner has undergone extensive period of remand but nothing has been recovered from him.
Admittedly the petitioner is previously non-convict, he is behind the bars since 10.12.2015, investigation qua the petitioner is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, challan has been submitted, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping him under incarceration for an indefinite period. The offence under section 496-A, P.P.C.
With which the petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34).
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.