Javed Ali vs The State
This matter concerns an application for the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Javed Ali, who was booked in an FIR involving the recovery of betel nuts and mainpuries (tobacco) from a truck. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to the confirmation of bail given the nature of the allegations and the statutory provisions involved. The Court observed that the investigation was complete, the case had been challaned, and the applicant was no longer required for further investigation. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of a chemical report to verify the hazardous nature of the recovered material and highlighted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in non-prohibitory offences, the Court confirmed the interim bail, emphasizing that the applicant was a first-time offender and the prosecution failed to establish exceptional grounds for withholding bail. The Court affirmed that the applicant must face trial, with observations being tentative.
- Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of a chemical report regarding recovered substances constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be confirmed when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Applicant is present on interim bail granted by this Court on 13.04.2020 and today the same is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.
The allegation against the applicant, as per FIR, is that on 31.03.2020 police party headed by complainant SIP Shahid Hussain Memon during a snap checking at Sim Nali Bridge Jhang Katiar Link Road spotted one truck bearing registration No.TKL-473, which was coming from Mullakatiar side with two persons in it; on seeing the police party both said persons succeeded to escape in the standing crop while throwing shopper; one of them was identified as present applicant/accused; the police party secured the shopper and found it containing 300 mainpuries (Tabaco), the police party checked truck and recovered 20 white colour katas from the body of said truck, the said katas were found containing betel nuts (the material used for preparation of maimpuri), hence present FIR was lodged.
2. It is, inter-alia, contended by the applicant that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated by the police at the instance of his uncle; that no specific role has been attributed to him; that there is general allegation against him that he fled away while throwing shopper containing 300 sachets of mainpuries. He further submits that the alleged recovery has not been secured from his exclusive possession; that chemical report still has not been received to show that whether the recovered material is hazardous material or otherwise; that the punishment of the offence, under which he has been challaned does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, he prayed that his bail application may be confirmed on same terms and conditions, as already granted to him.
3. On the other hand learned DPG has strongly opposed this bail application on the ground that huge quantity of mainpuries has been recovered at the spot, which was thrown by the present applicant and then fled away , therefore, according to him, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
4. Heard the applicant as well as learned DPG and perused the record. It is stated by the IO, who is present in Court, that case has been challaned and present applicant is no more required for further investigation. During course of arguments, I have specifically asked a question from the learned DPG that whether the chemical report is available in police file with him, on which he has replied in negative. Besides, as per police papers, it is yet to be determined at the time of trial, that whether the present applicant, at the time of incident, has thrown the material and escaped away from the spot or otherwise, which requires further inquiry . Apart from above the punishment for the offence under which the present applicant has been booked does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.PC, therefore, in such a situation grant of bail is a rule and refus al is an exception. There is no exceptional ground available on record to withhold the bail of applicant. There is nothing on record that present applicant is involved in other criminal cases, it appears that he is first offender and the case has already been challaned.
5. Under these circumstances, I found no justification to refuse this bail application. Accordingly , interim bail granted to applicant by this Court vide order dated 13.04.2020 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions.
Applicant is directed to appear before the Trial Court and face the trial.
6. Needless to mention here that observations made herein above, if any, are tentative in nature, therefore, learned Trial Court shall not be influenced in any manner whatsoever while deciding the case on merits.
7. Before parting with the order , I would like to make it clear that during proce eding before Trial Court, if the applicant/accused misuses the bail, then Trial Court shall be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant without making any further reference to this Court.
This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.