MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus State Syed Faiz-ul-Hassan , Shahanshah Shumagel Paracha,4. On the other hand, learned counsel
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 492 of 2005, registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged theft of livestock. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of mala fide implication, significant delay in lodging the F.I.R., lack of incriminating material, and the fact that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner had been incarcerated since January 2006, no recovery was effected from his possession, and he had no prior criminal record. Holding that the offence carried a maximum sentence of three years and did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the Court reiterated the principle that in such cases, bail is the rule and refusal is an exception. Finding that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the Court allowed the petition, granting bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is bail the rule and refusal the exception in cases where the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of recovery of stolen property from the accused constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Should an accused be kept in custody for an indefinite period when the investigation is complete and the offence is not punishable by death or life imprisonment?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J .---Petitioner Muhammad Sharif through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 492 of 2005, dated 26-11-2005 under section 379, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had stolen a buffalo and two goats of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been implicated in this case with mala fide intention of the complainant and in connivance with the local police; there is a delay of more than four months in lodging the F.I.R. no criminating material is available on the record; the petitioner has been involved in this case only on the basis of suspicion; the offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner was arrested on 21-1-2006. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner's possession to connect him with the offence. The petitioner is previous non-convict and not involved in any case of c attle theft. The offence does not fall under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The maximum punishment of the offence alleged against the petitioner is only three years. In such-like cases bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation and to keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any beneficial purpose.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-583/L Bail granted.