RAQIAS SHAH Versus THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Raqias Shah in relation to FIR No. 23 dated 21-2-2003 registered under sections 468, 420, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Daud Khel, Mianwali. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when found in possession of a vehicle bearing a bogus number plate, given that his co-accused had already been considered or that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as the vehicle was already in police custody, the petitioner was not a previous convict, the allegation of posing as the owner was merely an oral version at this stage, and no exceptional circumstances warranted the refusal of bail. The petition was consequently accepted and bail was granted subject to surety bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when alleged to be in possession of a vehicle with a bogus number plate?
- Does an oral allegation of posing as the owner of a vehicle constitute an exceptional circumstance to refuse bail?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Heard.
2. Raqias Shah son of Mehr Qias Shah, caste Shah resident of Shahbaz Shah Sheikhan, P.O. Shah Jahan, Tehsil and District Bannu, petitioner, has applied for his post‑arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No.23 of 2003, dated 21‑2‑2003 which stands registered under sections 468, 420, 471, P.P.C. with Police Station Daud Khel, Mianwali.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that on 19‑2‑2003 at 5‑25 a.m. during checking in the area of Computer Check‑Post Daud Khel, Plate bearing No. 7070‑LOZ fixed with Toyota Corolla Car in his possession and his co‑accused Muhammad Shakil after verification was found to be bogus and at the time of checking, he was sitting on the front seat of the vehicle. So at the instance of Muhammad Ilyas Khan, S.‑I. Incharge Computer Check Post Daud Khel, the abovesaid case was registered.
4. While refusing bail to the, petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali observed that the petitioner posed himself as owner of the car, therefore, his case is not identical to his co‑accused Muhammad Shakil who was simply driving the vehicle. It was further observed that the number plate fixed with the vehicle after verification was found to be of 70‑CC Honda owned by one Faqir Ahmad.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. that the case of the petitioner is identical to his co‑accused, therefore, he is also entitled for bail and that the petitioner is not a previous convict. He further argued that there is no exceptional circumstance to refuse bail to the petitioner, which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel who submitted that the vehicle in possession of the petitioner and his co accused was having a bogus number plate, therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
6. During arguments it transpired that the vehicle in question is in the custody of the police and that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The allegation against him is that he posed himself to be the owner of the car which at present is an oral version and when the trial is conducted at that stage his case shall be at par to his co‑accused and as to why not at this stage because the person who was driving the vehicle was in command of the vehicle or in other words in possession of the same therefore, there is no exceptional circumstances to refuse bail to this petitioner.
7. Consequently the petitioner is admitted to post‑arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./R‑268/L Bail granted.