Zareen Khan vs The State
This is a criminal bail application filed by Zareen Khan seeking post-arrest bail in Crime No.110 of 2020 registered under Section 8 of the Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019 at Police Station Jamshoro. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and independent witnesses were not associated with the recovery. The Sindh High Court held that since the offense carries a maximum punishment of three years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., and the accused was no longer required for investigation, the basic rule of 'bail not jail' applies. The Court laid down the principle that where an offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the trial is likely to take time, pre-trial detention should not be used as a punishment, and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to surety.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when the alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to associate private independent witnesses from a busy locality during an alleged recovery create a further case for the grant of bail?
- Whether pre-trial detention can be ordered indefinitely when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take time?
- Section 8, Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act 2019
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J. Having remained unsuccessful in obtain ing his release on bail from the trial Court in Crime No.110 of 2020 registered under section 8 of Sindh Prohibition of Preparation Manufacturing Storage Sale & Use of Gutka, Mainpuri Act, 2019, at PS Jamshoro, now the applicant Zareen Khan s/o Muhammad Khan is seeking his release on bail in the said crime through this bail application.
2. Precisely , the allegation against the applicant is that on 12.05.2020, during patrolling at Super Highway near new Toll Plaza Jamshoro, the complainant stopped the Hino Truck bearing number TKY-802, which was being driven by the applicant. However , as per complain ant, he recovered 140 plastic gunny bags of dust (choro) of beetle nuts from the truck, which is the main ingredient of intoxicant mainpuri.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant / accused has contended that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that despite prior spy information the complainant failed to arrange the private witness to witness the alleged recovery and despite of the fact that the alleged recovery was shown effected in day time from a busy area, no private mashir was taken from the locality; that there is no previous criminal record of applicant of indulging in any such like activity; that the alleged offence being punishable for three (03) years does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr .P.C; hence, the applicant is entitled for the grant of post-arrest bail.
4. Conversely , learned A.P.G appearing on behalf of State has opposed this application on the ground that applicant was found in possession of huge quantity of Mainpuri which could not have been easily foisted upon him; therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learne d counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.G and perused the material available on record with their assistance.
6. It appears from the record that case has been challaned and applicant / accused is no more required for further investigation. It is an admitted fact that incident took place at Super Highway near Toll Plaza where at the time of alleged incident the traffic was available but despite of the fact the complainant did not bother to associate any independent witness from the locality to witness the event. Nothing on record to show that applicant is previously convicted. The alleged offence being punishable for three (03) years does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In such like cases, basic rule is bail not jail. The trial is likely to take some time and no fruitful result come out in case accused is kept in judicial custody for an indefinite period.
7. Accordingly , this Cr. Bail Application is allowed. Consequently , the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand] and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
8. Needless to mention that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party at the time of.
9. It is made clear that in case applicant/accused in any manner try to misuse the concession of bail, it would be open for the trial Court to cancel his bail after issuing him the requisite notice along with his surety .