AURANGZEB vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the petitioner, Aurangzeb, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 420, 471, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of fraudulent land allotment and subsequent sale. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner, aged 65, was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and his specific role in the alleged offences. The Court observed that the petitioner was neither a witness nor an attorney in the alleged transactions and that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's guilt required further enquiry and granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, and the petitioner's direct involvement is not established, the case warrants further investigation, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does an offence under sections 420, 471, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a 65-year-old accused entitled to bail when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause and direct involvement is not established?
- Under what circumstances does a case require further enquiry to justify the grant of bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,244 of 1995, dated 15-10-1995 under sections 420/471/468, Pakistan Penal Code, Police Station, Civil Lines, Sahiwal.
2. Prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Registered on a letter from Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal briefly stated is that petitioner alongwith others fraudulently got issued an allotment order from Assistant Commissioner in favour of Sardar Khan, Muhammad Gauhar alias Gauhar Ahmad and thereafter sold the allotted land through their general attorney notwithstanding the fact that one of the allottee namely Sardar Khan had already died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for bail on the ground that petitioner is neither a witness in any transaction nor he was ever an attorney for any allottee and that he had been roped on account of hearsay evidence and that he is now in the judicial lock-up. He is 65 years of age and is no more required to the police for further investigation.
4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for the grant of bail by submitting that petitioner is guilty of fraud and he is a principal accused and, therefore, is not entitled to bail.
5. Admittedly, petitioner is neither a witness nor attorney in any of the alleged transactions. He is 65 years of age. The offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
For the afore-referred reasons the question of petitioner's guilty requires further enquiry.
Resultantly, this application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Aurangzeb son of Ghulam Muhammad shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- DEEDAR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 616