Muhammad Mansha etc. vs The State etc.
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioners, Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Munir, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 518 dated 03.07.2019 registered under Sections 457, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar District Vehari. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in light of delayed reporting, implication based on mere suspicion, dubious circumstances surrounding their arrest, and lack of identification of recovered articles. The court held that the case against the petitioners called for further inquiry into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof, recoveries lacked identification memos, and their further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The court laid down the principle that mere suspicion, however strong, does not constitute legal proof, and where the prosecution case presents debatable features regarding identity and arrest, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Can mere suspicion, regardless of how strong, substitute for legal proof in criminal cases for denying bail?
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the FIR is lodged with an unexplained delay and based on suspicion?
- Does the absence of an identification memo for alleged stolen property create a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Though this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. petitioners; Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Munir have sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 518 dated 03.07.2019, in respect of offences under Sections 457, 380 & 411, PPC, registered at Police Station, Saddar District V ehari.
2. The crime report contains the allegation that in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2019, the petitioners alongwith their two nominated accused had committed lurking house-breaking by night and took away precious articles and cash by breaking the locks. The names of the petitioners and their co-accused were implicated in this case on suspicion. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State and perused the record.
4. This occurrence had allegedly taken place in the intervening night of 25/26th of June, 2019 but it was reported to the police with the delay of seven days and that too on the basis of suspicion against the petitioners and others.
The arrest of the petitioners was shown in this case as on 28.9.2019 being already in police custody in another case FIR No. 279/2019, offence under Section 395, PPC registered at Police Station, Thingi. Furthermore, order of this Court dated 24.07.2019 Crl. Misc. No. 4575-H/2019 filed by one Muhammad Aslam seeking the recovery of the petitioners from the alleged illegal detent ion of Police Station Saddar Vehari, speaks otherwise showing that the petitioners were arrested in another case FIR No. 531/2019 being suspects on the basis of supplementary statement on the same day of raid condu cted by the Bailif f of this Court wherein they were granted protective pre- arrest bail and in consequence thereof disciplinary proceedings were directed to be initiated against the Station Mouse Officer. Anyhow , the petitioners were implicated in this case being suspects and the suspicions, whatsoever strong, always remains suspicion, which cannot take place of the legal proof. During investigation the recovery of cash of Rs. 7000 & Rs. 8000/- respective ly, has been shown against the petitioners, whereas, the motorcycle was produced by the complainant himself with the assertion that the accused had left it at the spot while running away but no identification memo. of any of the recovered articles, being stolen property , was prepared, which prima facie has no nexus with the present petitioners. In these circumstances, the case against the petitioners requires further probe and inquiry into their guilt under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars since their arrest without any tangible progress in the conclusion of the trial and their physical custody is no more required to the police for the purpose of investigation. At this stage, further incarceration of the petitioners would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
In view of above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.