Muhammad Sagheer vs State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerns a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of dacoity and possession of stolen property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the evidentiary value of the recovery. The Court observed that the petitioner had previously initiated criminal proceedings against a police official, suggesting that the current FIR was registered as a counter-blast. Furthermore, the Court noted discrepancies in the timing of the FIR registration and the fact that no other nominated accused had been arrested. The Court held that the recovery of the alleged stolen cash after six days was tenuous and that continued incarceration without trial progress was unjustified. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure by police against a complainant, and where evidence of recovery is weak, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail.
- Whether an FIR registered as a counter-blast to previous litigation against police officials constitutes valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- Does the delayed recovery of alleged stolen property weaken the prosecution's case for the purpose of bail?
- Can the lack of progress in trial and the continued incarceration of an accused justify the grant of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C. petitioner Muhammad Sagheer has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 694 dated 07.11.2019, in respect of offences under Sections 395 & 412 PPC, registered at Police Station, Shah-Jamal, District Muzaf fargarh.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that in the intervening night of 3/4.1 1.2019 he alongwith his one nominated and three unknown accused persons, while armed with pistols, trespassed into the house of complainant and snatched 'mobile, hard cash and some documents etc. from the complainant and his companions.
Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. It is evincing from the record that prior to the registration of this case, the petitioner got registerd a criminal case FIR No. 792 dated 20.10.2013, in respect of an offence under Section 382 PPC against a police constable namely , Akbar Dogar and others. The perusal of record further shows that mother of the petitioner namely , Zareena filed an application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. before learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, Muzaf fargarh wherein the police submitted false comments that case FIR No. 694/2019 has been registered against the petitioner on 04.11.2019, whereas, in fact on the said date no such case had been registered. Thereafter , father of the petitioner namely , Ghulam Shabbir , being aggrieved of his illegal detention, filed an application under Section 491 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge and subsequently , the case was registered against the petitioner . Except the present petitioner , no other nominated accused in this case was arrested by the police, which prima facie shows that the petitioner has been booked as a counter blast at the behest the aforesaid police official. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 08.11.2019 and during investigation the recovery of hard-cash Rs. 85,000/-, being the snatched amount, has been shown from the petitioner after six days "of the occurrence, which can hardly be connected against him. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest i.e. 08.11.2019 without any substantial progress in the conclusion of trial. In these circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.