MUBARAK ALI Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.370 of 2002 registered under sections 364/381-A/411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harrapa, District Sahiwal, concerning the abduction of the complainant's father and theft of a truck. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when not named in the F.I.R. and when the recovery of unspecified truck parts near his residence required further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., the recovery of unspecified parts was questionable, and no further incriminating evidence emerged during a prolonged detention, his case fell within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court granted the bail application, establishing the principle that an accused cannot be detained indefinitely as a punishment when the evidentiary link is tentative and falls under the statutory scope of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. whose only incriminating evidence is the recovery of unspecified parts near his residence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period as punishment when his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.370 of 2002, dated 22‑9‑2002 registered at Police Station Harrapa, District Sahiwal under sections 364/381‑A/411, P. P. C.
2. Brief facts as per F.I.R. are that one Yasin driver along with two other persons had hired truck bearing registration No.1750/FDA owned by the complainant's father namely, Muhammad Suleman and they also asked him to accompany with them. Till now the alleged truck and complainant's father are missing. Hence this case was got lodged.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor his name was mentioned in the supplementary statement made by the complainant. It is also contended that the petitioner was arrested on 9‑3‑2003 and was sent to judicial lock‑up on 24‑3‑2003 after undergoing full police remand but since then there is no progress in the conclusion of trial. It is further contended that the petitioner is not connected with the commission of offence in any manner, as the spare parts shown to be recovered from the truck allegedly parked near the house of the petitioner have no specific marks that these related to the truck of the complainant. It is lastly contended that the petitioner's case is of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner remained fugitive from justice for about 11 months and was also declared proclaimed offender; that the recovery was effected from near the place of petitioner's residence, which connects him with the commission of offence; that the petitioner's case falls within the purview of prohibitory clause, and that the co‑accused of petitioner namely, Muhammad Sharif was granted bail only as the complainant had entered into a compromise with him.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also opposes this application.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and for the present there is no evidence that the petitioner had abducted the complainant's father and he is alive or not. The only evidence against the petitioner is‑that the parts of alleged missing truck of complainant were: found near the place of petitioner's residence and were recovered at his instance. Whether these parts, which are without any specification belonged to the same truck is a question yet to be proved during the trial and for the time being there is no other tangible evidence to prima facie connect the petitioner with the commission of offence under section 364, P.P.C. Even otherwise, the petitioner is behind the bars since 9‑2‑2003 and he also remained under police remand for 14 days but nothing else could be recovered from the petitioner during the investigation. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period as a punishment when the petitioner's case is also covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑782/L Bail granted.