KHIZAR ABBAS And Another vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by Khizar Abbas and Muhammad Hur, who were accused in a case registered under sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the theft of a motorcycle. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the investigation and the nature of the alleged offences. Upon review, the court noted that the petitioners were not nominated in the First Information Report, no witnesses observed the theft, and no test identification parade was conducted to establish their involvement. Furthermore, the recovery of the stolen property occurred approximately two years after the incident. The court held that the offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail, determining that continued incarceration served no beneficial purpose as the investigation had concluded and the petitioners' guilt remained unsubstantiated by direct evidence.
- Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the accused were not nominated in the FIR and no test identification parade was conducted?
- Should bail be granted when the investigation has concluded and continued custody serves no beneficial purpose?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Through this petition this petition Khizar Abbas and Muhammad Hur alias Ghulam Hur petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 353 registered at Police Station City, Khanawal on 6.6.1998 for offences under section 381-A/411 PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the. Record it has been noticed that both the petitioners have not been nominated in the FIR and nobody had seen them stealing the motorcycle of the complainant. Admittedly no test identification parade' had been held in this case so as to positively implicate the petitioners in the theft in question: The motor- cycle of the complainant had allegedly been recovered in this case after about two years of the alleged theft. An offence under section 411, PPC does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The investigation in this case has already been concluded and, thus, continued psychical custody of the petitioners in jail is net likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
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.