BAHAWAL BAKHSH vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 83 of 1999 registered under sections 354 and 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh, on allegations of criminal house trespass and outraging the modesty of a woman. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the offence under Section 354 was bailable, and the offence under Section 452 did not prima facie attract its full ingredients and, in any event, carried a punishment not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that in offences not falling within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, leading to the acceptance of the bail petition.
- Whether an offence punishable under Section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail as a rule when the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks grant of bail in case F.I.R. No,83 of 1999 dated 11-3-1999 registered under section 354/452, P.P.C. At Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh.
2. The precise allegation levelled in the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner outraged the modesty of complainant's mother by catching hold her breast during the night between 10/11-3-1999 after criminally trespassing into her house situated in the area of Mauza Maitla, Police Station Shah Jamal. Statedly the petitioner was apprehended at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the F.I.R. Does not attract the ingredients of section 452, P.P.C. And that the offence under section 354, P.P.C. Allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he is entitled to the concession of bail as a rule. Conversely learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that on the night between 10/11-31999 he trespassed into the house of the petitioner, caught hold of his mother from her breast, and thus, had committed an offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. Since the offence i,e, outraging the modesty of a woman is punishable under section 354, P.P.C. And the same is a bailable offence, the petitioner is entitled for bail in this offence as of right. As far section 452, P.P.C. i,e, the house trespass after preparation to commit the offence is concerned, prima facie it is difficult to say that ingredients of section 452, P.P.C. Are attracted. Even otherwise this offence is punishable with seven years' R.I. Which does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And grant of bail in such-like cases is a rule. Reliance is placed on Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34.
Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.