Akbar Ali vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, who was charged with the possession of 1600 kg of 'Bhang'. The applicant sought bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arguing innocence, the absence of independent witnesses, and that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the statute. The State opposed the application, emphasizing the societal impact of the alleged offence. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail as a matter of right merely because the offence might fall outside the prohibitory clause. The Court observed that the police officials are competent witnesses and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty, given the substantial quantity of contraband recovered. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail application, finding no merit in the plea of false implication, and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within three months. The judgment reaffirms that the societal impact of an offence is a relevant consideration in bail adjudication, even for non-prohibitory offences.
- Does the fact that an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle an accused to bail?
- Can police officials be considered competent witnesses in the absence of independent witnesses?
- Is the societal impact of an alleged offence a valid consideration when deciding a bail application?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J:- It is alleged that the applicant was found in possession of 80 sacks, each one was containing 20 kg of " Bhang " total 1600 kg, for that the present case was registered against him by the police.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned I/C Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-III and Sessions Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant bail application u/s 497 Cr .P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police; there is no independent witness to the incident and offence alleged the applicant is not falling within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on point of further inquiry .
4. Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to release of the applicant on bail by contending that the offence alleged the applicant is af fecting the society at large.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The name of the applicant is appearing in the FIR with the specific allegation that he was found in possession of 1600 kg of "Bhang ". In that situation, it would be premature to say that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police. Apparently the police was having no reason to have involved the applicant in this case falsely by making foistation of such huge quantity of "Bhang " upon him. No doubt there is no independent witness to the incident, but there could be made no denial to the fact that the police officials are good witness as others. The offence alleged against the applicant may not be falling within prohibitory clause of section 497(2) Cr.P.C. but for this reason the applicant could not be released on bail as a matter of right, ignoring affects of the incident/of fence upon society . There appear reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence for which he has been charged. No case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out. Consequently , the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to learned trial court to dispose of the very case of the applicant within three months positively .