Pakistan Case Law
2007 YLR 1354

MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus State

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 YLR 1354
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1390-B of 2007
Date2007-03-09
Judge(s)Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan
ResultPetition allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station A-Division Okara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the offense did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and he had already spent a significant period in incarceration without trial progress. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, holding that keeping an accused behind bars for an indefinite period when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause and trial has not progressed amounts to punishment before conviction. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without trial progress for an offense outside the prohibitory clause justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does prolonged incarceration without trial progress amount to punishment before conviction?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when no recovery is to be made and he is no longer required for police investigation?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
  • Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
post-arrest bailprohibitory clausestatutory delaypunishment before convictiondishonestly issuing a cheque

ORDER

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.10 dated 5-1-2006 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. at Police Station, A-Division Okara.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent in this case; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the maximum punishment for the offence is 3 years and offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is in jail since one year.

3. Conversely, learned A.P.G. has opposed the grant of bail.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Admittedly the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment for the offence is only 3 years but the petitioner is in jail since one year. Challan has been submitted in the Court but no progress has been made so far. The petitioner is no more required by the police and nothing is to be recovered from him. Keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period of time will not serve or advance the prosecution case and it amounts to punishment before the conviction, which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.

6. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

H.B.T./M-169/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.