MAQSOOD alias SOODA vs THE STATE
This is an application for post-arrest bail filed on behalf of Maqsood alias Sooda in respect of a criminal case involving allegations of robbery where cash and personal items were snatched by armed assailants. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest considering the facts of the case, the delay in submission of the challan, and non-arrest of co-accused. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application, holding that since no complete or incomplete challan had been submitted in court despite the lapse of about six months and no proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had been initiated, the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that prolonged incarceration without submission of a challan and lack of progress in securing co-accused persons or initiating proclamation proceedings justifies the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no challan has been submitted in court for six months?
- Does the absence of proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a co-accused impact the bail plea of the arrested accused?
- Whether the framing of false allegations and previous involvement in other criminal cases bars the grant of bail in subsequent matters?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 197(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' This is an application for bail after arrest on behalf of Maqsood alias Sooda.
2. The allegations according to the F.I.R. Against the petitioner were that on 16-1-1999 at 8 a.m.
When complainant was going towards his house, two persons armed with fire-arms met him. They stopped him and on his personal search Rs,200, handkerchief and a photo copy of the identity card were snatched from him. F.I.R. Further reveals that the person who was armed with carbine was identified as Maqsood alias Sooda.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case against the petitioner is false, that in fact the complainant party was very influential and they had already involved the petitioner in a case under section 302, P.P.C., in which he was arrested and then was allowed bail. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not a P.C. He has also placed on record a certified copy of case F.I.R. No,81 of 1996, dated 20-3-1996, registered on the statement of Syed Akbar Ali Shah.
Learned counsel submits that both the complainants of the F.I.R. No,16 of 1998 and F.I.R. No,81 of 1996 are close relatives.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 197(1), Cr.P.C. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 28-1-1999, about six months have passed. Neither his co-accused has been arrested nor any proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C., were initiated against him. No complete or incomplete challan has been submitted in Court, so far. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Ilaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.