PERVAIZ AKIITER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Pervaiz Akhtar, seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 392, 397, 411, and 400 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered at Police Station Aziz Bhatti. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations, the lack of recovery from his possession, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the specific role of car-snatching was attributed to co-accused persons, no recovery was made from the applicant, and the charge applicable to him (section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860) does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the State counsel offered no objection to the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the specific role of the main offence is attributed to co-accused and the charge against the applicant falls outside the prohibitory clause, bail should be granted.
- Is an offence under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of recovery from an accused person provide grounds for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the State counsel offers no objection to the application?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 400, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13-D, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
1. ' Applicant Pervaiz Akhtar is seeking bail in Crime No,146 of 2000 under sections 392, 397, 411 and 400 P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Aziz Bhatti. The applicant has also filed Bail Application before the VI-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, East but without success.
2. ' According to contents of F.I.R. The complainant got his case registered with Police Station Aziz Bhatti, by alleging therein that he came to his office at 10-30 a.m. And parked his Car No,ABC-112, Toyota Corolla and after completing his office work when he was opening the door of his car then 2 persons came armed with pistols and pushed him by asking to sit on the rear seat of the car and threatened him to remain silent and moved by driving his car. It is further alleged that when they reached near Gulistan-e-Johar Chowrangi they pushed him out from the car by taking his valet containing Rs,15,000 and fled away. Police thereafter took up investigation and challaned the accused on 31-7-2000.
3. ' Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned counsel for applicant has argued that the five accused have been nominated in the Challan, whereas two persons, namely, Yasin Gujar and Adeel have been alleged to have snatched away the car of the complainant which is borne out from the challan. According to him, there is recovery of computer from the possession of co-accused Yasin and there is no recovery from the possession of the present applicant. According to Mr. Shahadat Awan learned counsel for applicant, the present applicant has been arrested on 13-7-2000 while sitting in car and at the most section 411, P.P.C. Is applicable on the applicant which is not being covered by the provisions of Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He has further contended that the present applicant has been granted bail under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance in Case No,112 of 2000 by the VII-Additional Judicial Magistrate and the certified copy of bail order has also been filed by the learned counsel for applicant. He has argued that no identification parade of accused persons who are involved in the case, has been held by any competent Magistrate. Lastly, he has prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. ' Miss Rana Khan, learned State counsel submits that admittedly, the offence under section 411, P.P.C. Can be attracted on the present applicant; moreover, he has been identified by the complainant at the police station, which has got no sanctity and therefore, she has very frankly recorded her no objection to the grant of bail.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have given anxious consideration to the material available on record.
6. Admittedly, the challan has been submitted on 31-7-2000 wherein these accused have been nominated and out of the above named Yasin and Adeel have been assigned specific role that they were persons, who snatched away the car from the complainant and admittedly the recovery of computer has been effected from the possession of co-accused Yasin; admittedly, the present applicant has been arrested on 13-7-2000 in a car and section 411 was applied by the police in the challan, which is not falling within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; besides the above, the present applicant has been granted bail under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance by the trial Court. I am, therefore, of the considered view that at the moment, the present applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail, particularly, in view of the no objection given by learned State Counsel, the present applicant is granted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court .