SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sajjad Hussain, in a criminal case registered under sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding an alleged robbery and possession of stolen property. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the statutory provisions involved. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. The reasoning for this decision was that the primary evidence against the petitioner relates to section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the court noted the absence of a test identification parade and the fact that the petitioner is not a previous convict. The key principle laid down is that where the offence alleged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is an exception.
- Does an offence under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the absence of a test identification parade a relevant factor in considering a bail application?
- When an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is the grant of bail generally favored?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.- Sajjad Hussan, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case FIR No. 5/2001 dated 9.1.2001 under section 392 and 411 PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Lodhran.
2. According to FIR, three armed persons, who had muffled their faces, stopped the motorcycle of the complainant. At that time, the complainant was accompanied by the PWs Muhammad Akram and Gulzar Ahmad. It is further alleged that accused on the strength of their weapons snatched away the motor-cycle and the money belonging to the complainant and the PWs. The petitioner is in judicial Lock-up. The investigation qua him has been completed. During investigation stolen motor-cycle was allegedly recovered firom The shop of the petitioner.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been conceded by the learned State counsel that no test identification parade, was held and none was mentioned as accused in the FIR. According to the stance of the petitioner, the motor-cycle was left at his shop by the accused for sale purpose, as the petitioner deals with the business of sale and purchase of second-hand motor-cycles.
4. Be that as it may, the sole evidence available against the petitioner attracts the provision of section 411 PPC, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is also not a previous convict. The allegation vis-a-vis section 392 PPC needs further prose and inquiry.
5. For what has been discussed above, we are inclined to release the petitioner, subject to his tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs. One Lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.