RASHID vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a criminal petition for bail filed by the petitioner, Rashid, challenging the cancellation of his bail by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, in a case involving allegations of using counterfeit currency under sections 489-B and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges, given the evidentiary material available. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and a co-accused paid for a buffalo using counterfeit notes. However, the record indicated that the counterfeit notes were paid by the co-accused, and there was a significant delay in reporting the incident. The Court held that the petitioner's case was arguable and that the evidence did not warrant continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage, particularly noting that section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is bailable. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the delay in reporting and the specific role attributed to the co-accused made the petitioner's case one of further inquiry.
- Does a significant delay in reporting an incident involving counterfeit currency provide grounds for granting bail?
- Is an offense under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bailable?
- Can a petitioner be admitted to bail when the primary evidence of the offense points toward a co-accused?
- Section 489-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Petitioner, Rashid son of Farid, resident of Guli Bagh Tehsil and District Charsadda, is involved in case F.I.R. No,335, dated 11-6-1999 under section 489-B/420, P.P.C. Of Police Station Sardheri. He was allowed bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Charsadda on 14-7-1999 but the learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda vide his order, dated 6-11-1999 recalled the aforesaid order and cancelled his bail. This order has been impugned by the petitioner.
2. Complainant Gul Rehman stated that on 11-6-1999 he alongwith his father were present in their house when their relative Rashid came to their house and informed his father that one Hayat Khan wanted to purchase a buffalo. Accordingly they brought out the buffalo and the calf from the house where the two accused saw the animals and agreed to purchase the same for a sum of Rs,13,000. They accordingly paid the amount to them and took away the animals. On the following day when they examined the notes these were found to be counterfeit. Accordingly they produced 13 counterfeit notes of the one thousand denomination each to the Investigating Officer.
3. In the instant case the occurrence took place on 11-6-1999 while the complainant made a report on the following day when he produced the counterfeit notes to the Investigating Officer at the time of the report. The record suggests that Zakirullah Butcher made a statement on 28-7-1999 under section 164, Cr.P.C. That a month ago Rashid petitioner had come to him and offered a buffalo for sale and that he purchased the same from him for Rs,9,200 and got the delivery of the bufallo from the house of Hayat Khan co-accused. The record further suggests that the counterfeit notes were paid to the complainant by Hayat Khan co-accused and that subsequently the buffalo had also been sold to Zakirullah from the house of the said co-accused. In the instant case section 420, P.P.C. Is bailable and the only charge brought against the petitioner so far is that of the complainant and his father Jumma Khan. The other section of law no doubt entails punishment for more than 10 years but the evidence available on the record suggests that the case of the petitioner is arguable because the report in the case has been made after a considerable delay.
The petitioner is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.