MUHAMMAD HANIF and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by four individuals accused in FIR No. 73, registered at Police Station Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura, for offences under sections 506, 186, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offences and the stage of the investigation. Upon review, the Court observed that no injuries were caused by the petitioners during the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under section 186 is bailable, and the offence under section 506 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that bail is the rule and refusal the exception in non-prohibitory cases, and noting that the investigation was complete and the petitioners had already been incarcerated for approximately two and a half months, the Court granted bail. The key principle established is that bail should not be withheld as a form of premature punishment when the offence does not attract the prohibitory clause.
- Does an offence under section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an offence under section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
- Should bail be withheld when the investigation is complete and the accused has spent significant time in custody for non-prohibitory offences?
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ali and Jaffar petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 73 registered at Police Station, Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura on 18-4-2000 for offences under section 506/186/148/149/34, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 14 and 149, P.P.C. Were deleted from the F.I.R. And they were substituted by section 34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that no injury had been caused by any of the petitioners during the occurrence in question.
An offence under section 186, P.P.C. Is bailable whereas an offence under section 506, P.P.C. Does not attract the prohibitory clause obtained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases grant of bail is a rule and its refusal is merely an exception. The challan in this case has already been prepared after completion of investigation and, therefore, continued physical custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve, any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite law that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment. The petitioners have already spent about 2-1/2 months in jail in connection with this case.
3. For what has been discussed above this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.