GHULAM AKBAR Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 14 of 2003, registered under Section 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the recovery had already been effected, and he had been incarcerated since January 16, 2003, with no further requirement for investigation. Additionally, the petitioner asserted he was a previous non-convict. The State opposed the bail application, arguing that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause and that sufficient material existed to connect the petitioner to the crime. Upon review, the Court held that the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the recovery was complete, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner had no prior convictions, the Court determined that continued detention served no useful purpose and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an offence under Section 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete, recovery has been effected, and the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Section 401, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner has applied for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 14 of 2003, dated 16-1-2003 under section 401, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chowk Azam, Tehsil and District Layyah on the grounds that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to the mala fide of the complainant; that the offence complained, against the petitioner does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. that the recovery has already been effected; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 16-1-2003 and is no more required for further, investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that the petitioner is previous non-convict.
2. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the grounds that the offence complained against the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and there is material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime complained, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Heard both sides and record perused.
5. Admittedly the offence complained. Against the petitioner does no fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The alleged recovery has already been effected and the petitioner is behind the bars since 16-1-2003 and is no more required by the police for further investigation. Moreover the petitioner is not a previous convict-
6. In view of the above discussion further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose therefore, the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./G-330/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2184