MUHAMMAD HANIF & 3 Other vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Hanif and three others seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 73 registered at Police Station, Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura, under Sections 506, 186, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail where no injuries are attributed to them and the offences charged either are bailable or do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that since no injuries were caused by the petitioners, Section 186 is bailable, Section 506 does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the challan has already been prepared, and the petitioners have spent over two months in custody, bail should be granted as a rule rather than withheld by way of premature punishment. The petition was consequently allowed and the petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether bail should be granted when an offence does not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the concession of bail be withheld by way of premature punishment during pre-trial detention?
- Does an offence under Section 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 qualify as bailable?
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.-- Through this petition Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Karim, Muhammad Ali and Jaffar petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 73 registered at Police Station, Safdarabad, District Sheikhupura on 18.4.2000 for offences under Sections 506/186/148/149/34, PPC. During the investigation Sections 148 and 149, PPC were deleted from the FIR and they were substituted by Section 34, PPC.
2. After hearing thd learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that no injury had been caused by any of the petitioners during the occurrence in question.
An offence under Section 186, PPC is bailable whereas an offence under Section 506. PPC does not attact the prohibitory clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In such of bail is a rule and its refusal is merely an exception. The challan in this case has already been prepared after completion of investigation and, therefore, continued physical custody of' the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is trite law that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment. The petitioners have already spent about 2 1/2 months in jail in connection with this case.
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.