ZAREEN KHAN Versus THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 381-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for car lifting. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner's case fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether bail should be granted on statutory further inquiry grounds as well as medical grounds given his serious condition in jail. The court held that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., was not subjected to an identification test, and that the alleged recovery attracted an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while also noting his critical medical condition supported by the jail medical report. Consequently, the petition was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner. The key principles laid down include that where an accused is not named in the F.I.R. and not identified, the case falls under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for further inquiry, and a debilitating medical condition satisfying the first proviso to section 497(1) warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. and not put to an identification test makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an offence under section 381-A or section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether a serious medical condition rendering an accused unable to walk independently warrants the grant of bail under the first proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Zareen Khan, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.253, dated 26‑6‑2003 under section 381‑A, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Peoples Colony, Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the allegation against him is of car lifting.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he was not put to any identification test, hence the question of his culpability remains in doubt; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars and previous non‑convict; and that he is sick in jail.
4. On the other hand, the learned, counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the offence against him is heinous in nature. He, however, has shown no objection on the grant of bail to him on medical ground in view of the report of the Medical Officer Jail annexed to the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
7. He is not named in the F.I.R. Admittedly he was not put to any identification test. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
8. Allegedly the recovery of stolen car of the complainant from him was effected. The same, if accepted would attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C. not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and even the offence under section 381‑A, P.P.C. He is also stated to be sick in jail and in this regard the Report No.408, dated 13‑8‑2003 by the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Gujranwala has been relied upon and the same is as follows:‑‑
"At the moment, he is admitted in jail hospital, taking treatment as advised by Neurosurgeon. He is unable to stand and walk independently. He has also no control over urination."
9. In view of such report, the learned State Counsel has not shown any, objection on grant of bail to him on medical ground.
10. The said report suggests that he is unable to stand and walk independently and has also no control over urination. He was also examined by Neuro Surgeon from D.H.Q. Hospital, Gujranwala and the treatment suggested by him is being given to him.
11. I may mention here that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, has not accepted his such plea with the observation that such report appears to be manoeuvred one. I am afraid that how it was so, has not been mentioned by him in his order.
12. Anyway, without going deep into such aspect, I would like to say here that he seemingly is sick person attracting first proviso to section 497(1), Cr.P.C. to his case.
13. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non‑convict.
14. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail Bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./Z‑206/L Bail granted.