MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Rafiq, who was charged under Sections 506 and 387 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of extortion via a threatening letter. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court observed that the investigation was incomplete regarding the authorship of the letter, as no handwriting analysis was conducted, and the prosecution failed to establish a prior criminal record. The Court also criticized the trial court's reliance on an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an, ruling it a violation of Article 163 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 and established Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the bail application was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- Is it legally permissible for a trial court to rely on an oath taken on the Holy Qur'an to determine bail in a criminal case?
- What is the evidentiary significance of failing to send a disputed document to a handwriting expert during a criminal investigation?
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 387, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Article 163, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
Muhammad Rafiq petitioner has sought his post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.3 registered at Police Station Shaher Sultan on 4‑1‑2002 for offences under sections 506/387, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. the complainant received a letter written by the petitioner that complainant should place Rs.1,00,000 on the roof of a telephone both otherwise he would be murdered.
3. After his arrest the investigation against the petitioner has been completed and he is in the judicial lock‑up.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that none of the offences attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that according to the school leaving certificate the petitioner was less then 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State have vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner and have argued that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and that he had committed a heinous offence which is not an offence against an individual but an offence against the society. It has also been argued that the petitioner had written a such like letter earlier to one Mian Arshad Rasool. It is finally argued that the age of the petitioner, according to the police record is about 24 years and, therefore, he cannot be termed as juvenile.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It has been noticed that the date of occurrence was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Admittedly, no handwriting specimen of the petitioner was taken nor the letter written by the petitioner was sent to the Handwriting Expert to ascertain whether the same was written by the petitioner or not. It has been admitted by the Police Officer present with record in the Court that no case was registered against the petitioner previously. While dismissing the bail application of the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge was influenced by the oath taken on Holy Qur'an by one Mian Arshad Rasool. Such‑like proceedings conducted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in clear violation of Article 163 of Qanun‑e- Shahadat Order and the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Bashiran Bibi v. Nisar Ahmad and others (PLD 1990 SC 83). None of the offences attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been discussed above I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑1022/L Bail granted.