GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Rasool, in connection with FIR No. 114/2001 registered at Police Station Pakpattan City. The petitioner was apprehended by a patrolling party allegedly in possession of stolen allopathic medicines belonging to a Government Hospital, valued at Rs. 23,000. The petitioner contended that the items were purchased from a store. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offences and the status of the investigation. Upon review, the Court noted that the investigation was complete and the petitioner had no prior criminal convictions. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offences charged under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were not punishable by imprisonment of ten years or more. Consequently, the Court held that bail should be granted as a rule in such circumstances. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a rule when the offences charged are not punishable by imprisonment of ten years or more?
- Does the completion of an investigation influence the court's decision to grant post-arrest bail?
- Should bail be granted to a first-time offender when the investigation is complete?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, - Ghulam Rasool son of Muhammad Hussan/petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail, in a case FIR No. 114/2001 registered at Police Station Pakpattan City, under Sections 379/411, PPG.
2. According to the allegations containe in the FIR, the petitioner was apprehended by the patrolling party having allopathic medicines belonging to the Government Hospital, valuing Rs. 23,000/-, which were recovered from his bag. The stance of the petitioner was that he had purchased the same from a store.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The investigation of the case has been completed. He is not a previous convict. None of the offences is punishable with 10 years imprisonment or more and in such like cases baft should be granted as a rule as laid down in the case of Muhammad Amir Vs. The State (1973 P.Cr.L.J. 205), therefore, I. Am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.