MALOOK and 2 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, who were charged under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The applicants' bail pleas had been previously rejected by the trial court and the Sessions Judge, Dadu, primarily due to the applicants' involvement in other similar cases. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite their criminal history, given that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, noting that the maximum punishment for the offence was two years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause. Furthermore, the court reasoned that the mere pendency of other cases does not disentitle an accused to bail, especially when the accused is already on bail in those matters. The court granted the bail, emphasizing the duration of custody and the fact that the prosecution witnesses were police officials.
- Does an offence with a maximum punishment of two years fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the pendency of other criminal cases against an accused automatically disentitle them to the grant of bail?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution witnesses are primarily police officials and the accused has been in custody for a significant period?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant seeks bail in Crime No,60 of 1999, Police Station Sehwan registered for offence under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The bail plea of the applicant was rejected by the trial Court as well as by the Sessions Judge, Dadu on the ground that applicant is involved in many cases of similar nature.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the maximum punishment provided for the above offence is only two years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further argues that the applicant has remained in custody for four months but the case has not proceeded. He further argues that as far as the involvement of the applicant in other cases of similar nature is concerned the applicant is on bail in those cases and that the applicant cannot be said guilty of those cases till he is convicted in any case. Pendency of any case does not disentitle the applicant for grant of bail.
3. ' The learned counsel for the State does not oppose the grant of bail and he at the very outset submitted that he has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant.
4. In view of the above facts that the applicant is admittedly facing trial before the First Class Magistrate and has remained in custody for about four months and that the witnesses are police officials as informed by the counsel. Considering these facts I am of the view that the applicant deserves the concession of bail and the same is accordingly granted. The applicant, therefore, shall be released on bail in the above case subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.