GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail after his interim pre-arrest bail was withdrawn in a case arising from F.I.R. No. 24 of 1988 registered at Police Station Silanwali, District Sargodha. Initially, the petitioner was accused under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which falls within the prohibitory clause. However, during the course of investigation, section 354-A was deleted and replaced with section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable and does not fall within the prohibitory clause. The court considered that the offence currently attributed to the petitioner is not covered by the prohibitory clause and that the case warrants further inquiry. Consequently, the Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail upon furnishing bail bonds with a surety to the satisfaction of the trial court, establishing the principle that bail is ordinarily granted when an offence is not part of the prohibitory clause and further inquiry is made out.
- Whether bail should be granted when the offence is not covered by the prohibitory clause of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does the deletion of a non-bailable section during investigation justify granting post-arrest bail for a bailable section?
- Section 354-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 354, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' The petitioner who was initially accused vide F.I.R. No,24 of 1988, dated 21-1-1988 registered with Police Station Silanwali District Sargodha under section 354-A, P.P.C. For an occurrence which took place on 18-1-1988 at the instance of Mst. Faizan wife of Ghulam Hussain, had been admitted to pre-arrest bail on 10-4-1999. He was taken into custody on withdrawal of his interim pre-arrest bail.
2. The bail is claimed only on the ground that during the course of investigation section 354-A, P.P.C.
3. Had not been found to be applicable and now the petitioner is required as an accused only under section 354, P.P.C., which according to. The learned counsel is bailable. He, however, supplements that even eye-witnesses do not support the allegation against the petitioner, therefore, his case is open to further enquiry. Be that as it may, section 354-A, P.P.C., which was covered by the prohibitory clause has been deleted and at present the petitioner is only accused of an offence under section 354, P.P.C., which is not covered by the prohibitory clause. The petitioner, therefore, is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,25,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.