Muhammad Jahangir vs The State, etc

ORDER

Muhammad Asif, J. Through the instant petition, the Petitioner/accused (Muhammad Jahangir) seeks post-arrest bail in FIR No.84/2024, dated 12.02.2024, offences under Section 381-A, 411 and 401 PPC, registered with Police Station Margalla, Islamabad. His earlier bail petitions, filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate Sec-30, Islamabad-West and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, West-Islamabad, were dismissed, vide orders dated 01.11.2024 and 04.02.2025, respectively.

2. Briefly stated, the case facts are that Complainant (Muhammad Yousaf) had reported the theft of his white-colored vehicle, Toyota Corolla 1985 Model, bearing Registration No.LOR-9192, Model 1985, Engine No.4E2600840, Chassis No.EE807000829, by an unknown person from Jinnah Avenue Road near Metro Station, Islamabad.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the accused is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case; that no recovery has been affected; that the there is no validity of the disclosure or poination made in the police custody; that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry, who is in custody since his arrest, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in a number of cases of similar nature; that the accused is involved in tampering of vehicles and FSL report is available on record; that recovery of the subject vehicle has also been affected and the petitioner has rightly identified the place of occurrence. In view thereof, the learned State Counsel submitted that there is a good chance that the petitioner will repeat the offence if released on bail, hence, prayed for dismissal of present bail petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as State Counsel, and perused the record. At first and foremost instance, it shall be kept in mind that the occurrence reported through the aforementioned FIR is unseen and un-witnessed event. As far as the recovery of the subject stolen vehicle is concerned, I may observe here that at the most it attracts the provision of Section 411 PPC, which carries maximum punishment upto three years. So far as sections 381-A and 401 of PPC to the present petitioner are concerned, the same shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence, however, maximum punishment for both the offences is upto 7 years.

6. Even otherwise, the aforesaid offences do not attract the prohibitory limb of section 497 (1) Cr.PC.

Grant of bail in such like offences is a rule and refusal thereof is an exception. In the case of "Muhammad Taveer v/s The State & another" (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 733), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once this Court has held in categorical terms that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C. shall be a rule and refusal shall be an exception then, the Courts of the country should follow this principle in its letter and spirit because principles of law enunciated by this Court are constitutionally binding on all Courts throughout the country including the Special Tribunals and Special Courts.

7. As far as, the arguments of learned State Counsel that the petitioner is involved in a number of cases of similar nature, which shows that the applicant is a habitual offender. It is suffice to say that mere registration of cases by itself is not sufficient to declare an accused as a habitual offender, unless it is proved/established that he has been convicted. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Jafar @ Jaferi v. The State (2012 SCMR 606).

8. No doubt, in a post arrest bail only tentative assessment is to be made and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at this stage is neither desirable nor permissible but benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warrant. I fortify my view from the case law reported as "Resham Khan and another Vs. The State" (2021 SCMR 2011), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in paragraph No.8 of the judgment has held as under:- "...The insight and astuteness of further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching just conclusion. The case of further inquiry presupposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is well settled that object of trial is to make an accused to face the trial and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bar. Every accused is innocent until his guilt is proved and benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warrant. The basic philosophy of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle applies at all stages including pre-trial and even at the time of deciding whether accused is entitled to bail or not...".

9. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest; investigation is complete to his extent and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, petitioner's captivity would not serve any useful purpose. I am of the view that from the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner's involvement in this case has become doubtful and his case squarely falls within the purview of Subsection (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C and bail could not be withheld as a strategy of punishment. Moreover, keeping the petitioner incarcerated would tantamount to punishing him before the conclusion of trial. Guidance is sought from the case titled as "Husnain Mustafa vs. The State" 2019 SCMR 1914).

10. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court concerned.

11. Observations made in this order are tentative in nature, which shall in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial court, where the case be decided on its own merits after recording evidence.