GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus State
This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail and confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving counter-allegations between the parties. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries sustained and the statutory prohibition against bail for certain offenses. The applicants contended that they were falsely implicated for malicious reasons, that the cases had been challaned, and that the maximum punishment for the injuries sustained did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure law. The State counsel offered no objection to the grant of bail. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found merit in the applicants' contentions and the State's position. Consequently, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, granting post-arrest bail to one applicant and confirming the interim pre-arrest bail for the others, subject to furnishing bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where the maximum punishment for an alleged offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail is generally appropriate.
- Does an offense carrying a maximum punishment of five years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the parties have registered counter-cases against each other and the State offers no objection?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- It is argued that the parties have registered counter-cases, against each other, the applicants have been falsely implicated for malicious reason, the cases have been challaned and that the maximum punishment provided for the injuries sustained by Abdul Karim is five years, which does not fall within the prohibition contained under section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. Learned State counsel has stated no objection.
3. On perusal of the material on record and consideration of the arguments it appears that contentions raised are not without force, as such, learned State counsel. seems to have rightly extended no objection.
4. In the circumstances, applicant Abdul Ghafoor is granted bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, whereas interim pre-arrest bail granted to applicants Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Nabi is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
5. H.B.T./G-35/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Imran vs The State, etc 2022 IHC 96