MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This criminal matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ashraf, who was implicated in a case through a supplementary statement after not being named in the initial First Information Report, and from whom a looted video compact disc (VCD) was allegedly recovered. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the recovery of looted property and the gravity of the offense. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no case for bail was made out because the offense under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for life and falls squarely within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that recovery of looted property in an offense carrying a punishment falling within the prohibitory clause disentitles an accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused named in a supplementary statement is entitled to bail when looted property is recovered from his possession?
- Does an offense punishable under Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the recovered item was looted during a dacoity?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J .-Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not named in the FIR.; that he was named in the supplementary statement; that as far as recovery of VCD is concerned, that was planted upon the petitioner because blood relations of petitioner could not give bribe to the police and that he is first offender.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant on the very next day; that VCD was recovered from the petitioner and that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Without going into merit of the case, fact remain that VCD, which was looted during dacoity, has been recovered from the petitioner. The said offence under section 412, P.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for life, which falls within prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No case for bail is made out. This petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-265/L Bail refused.