Syed MEHMOOD ALI SHAH vs The STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 359/17, registered under sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of fraud and forgery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who acted as a broker, was entitled to bail after arrest given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that the eight-month delay in registering the FIR remained unexplained, suggesting deliberation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offences under sections 420 and 471 are bailable, and section 468 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the petitioner was a first-time offender, the investigation was complete, and trial proceedings had not progressed. The Court established the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation, the grant of bail is the rule, while refusal is the exception.
- Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Are offences under sections 420 and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable in nature?
- Does section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception when the accused is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No,359/17 dated 18.03.2017 under sections 420, 468, 471, P.P.C., Police Station Harbance Pura, District Lahore.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of almost eight months in registration of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant, which prima facie shows that the FIR has been got registered after due deliberation and consultation. There is no allegation of preparing forged document against the petitioner and the only allegation against him is that he was a broker and he arranged meeting of the complainant with co-accused Shaukat Ali, etc. who have allegedly received the amount of Rs,10.00,000/- from the complainant. Even otherwise, the offences under sections 420 and 471, P.P.C. are bailable in nature, while section 468, P.P.C. does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 10.09.2017 but his trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. In such like cases grant of bail is a rule, while its refusal is an exception. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 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 furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each 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.