ABID HUSSAIN SHAH Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abid Hussain Shah, in connection with F.I.R. No. 42 of 2006, registered at Police Station Karor, District Layyah, for alleged offences under sections 379, 420, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he had been declared innocent during the investigation, there was an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the F.I.R., and no recovery had been effected from him. Furthermore, the Court observed that the charged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the law, and that the petitioner could not be detained in jail as a form of punishment before his guilt was proven at trial. Consequently, the Court granted the bail application, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the fact that an accused was declared innocent during the investigation constitute a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be withheld for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal statutes?
- Is a delay in lodging an F.I.R. a relevant factor for the court to consider when deciding a bail application?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.42, dated 3-3-2006 registered under sections 379, 420 and 468, P.P.C. at Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with others came to the sale Depot and after breaking the locks, prepared forged documents and upon their return, took C.P.R. Book No.7 and Indent Book No.435 etc. along with them and it was transpired that the forged C.P.Rs.; were prepared whereby it was shown that 1,81,323 Kgs. Sugar cane has been supplied to the Mills priced at about Rs.4,65,000.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the .petitioner that the petitioner has been involved in this case falsely with mala fide intention; that during the investigation, the petitioner was declared to be innocent, that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., for which no explanation has been given by .the prosecution; that the offences under sections 420 and 468, P.P.C. are not attracted to the petitioner while there is no evidence of offence under section 379, P.P.C. against the petitioner; that no recovery has been effected against the petitioner; that the petitioner is a previous non-convict and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 5-3-2006.
4. On the other hand, the learned D.P.G. has opposed the bail application.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. During the investigation, the petitioner has been declared innocent. There is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The offences with which the petitioner is charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause. There is no evidence of the offence under section 379, P.P.C. therefore, the same is not attracted to the petitioner. Section 420, P.P.C. is bailable. As the offence under section 468, P.P.C. is non-cognizable, bail cannot be withheld until the guilt of the petitioner is proved at the trial. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Abdul Qudus v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 430. The petitioner is behind the bars since 5-3-2006 and he cannot be kept in jail as punishment.
7. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of R.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount- to the .satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-169/L Bail granted.