BASIT ANSARI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by Basit Ansari seeking pre-trial release in respect of an F.I.R. registered under Section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged theft of surety documents from the office of the Additional Sessions Judge No. V, Karachi South. The Trial Court had previously dismissed the bail application, noting that stolen surety documents and a duplicate key were recovered from the applicant and expressing apprehension of tampering with evidence since the final challan had not been submitted, alongside the gravity of stealing court records. The core legal question concerns whether post-arrest bail should be granted to an accused when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and where a co-accused has allegedly been released. The High Court held that the case does not merit withholding bail merely because court property was involved or because the offence carries severity, especially as the offence is not punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or ten years. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicant subject to furnishing solvent surety.
- Whether bail should be refused merely because the stolen property pertains to court records?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the charged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the likelihood of tampering with evidence warrant the denial of bail when the final challan has not yet been submitted?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. The F.I.R. In this case was registered on 22-8-1998, for offence under section 380, P.P.C. The First Informant is Ghulam Ali, Senior Clerk, Court of Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South and the stolen property is stated to be surety documents from the office of Additional Sessions Judge No,V, Karachi South. The learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South rejected the bail application of the applicant mentioned as under:-- "No doubt name of the present applicant does not find place in F.I.R. But during the interrogation the applicant above-named has produced certain surety documents on 29-8-1998 which are the stolen property and since the recovery is made from present applicant alongwith duplicate key of almirah, as such, at present sufficient material is available against the present applicant to connect him with crime under section 380, P.P.C. Apart from it the case against the present accused has not been finally challaned, therefore, there is every likelihood of tampering with evidence if the bail is granted at this stage. I would further like to mention here that since the matter is pertaining to the theft of Court record, as such, severity of the offence is attached and under the circumstances while final challan is not submitted yet by the police, as such I am not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the present applicant.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has requested for bail on the ground that the applicant is a peon of the Judicial Magistrate and he has been made victim of conspiracy. He further submits that another accused Zaheer Ali was also arrested by the police but he was let off. It is the prosecution case that the surety documents were produced by the mother of the applicant.
3. We cannot take a biased view merely because Court property i,e, surety documents were stolen.
4. The offence is not punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years and there is allegation that the co-accused arrested by the police has been let off.
5. In these circumstances, I grant bail to the applicant on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Fifty thousand only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.