ZAKIR ALI NASEEM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Aamar Rasheed and Zakir Ali Naseem, who were accused of committing fraud within the Education Department of the Municipal Corporation, Lahore. The petitioners had been in judicial custody since their arrest on October 3, 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the prolonged detention without the submission of a challan and the lack of progress in the investigation. The Court observed that despite the passage of three months, the investigation remained incomplete, the challan had not been submitted, and the investigating officer indicated that no immediate progress was expected due to the non-arrest of other co-accused. Furthermore, the Additional Advocate General did not oppose the bail application. The Court held that the petitioners could not be detained indefinitely pending the completion of the investigation. Consequently, the Court admitted both petitioners to bail, invoking the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial progress justifies relief under the statutory provisions governing bail in non-bailable offences.
- Does the failure to submit a challan within a reasonable period justify the grant of bail to an accused in custody?
- Can an accused be kept in judicial custody indefinitely when the investigation remains incomplete and the challan has not been submitted?
- Does the non-arrest of co-accused justify the continued detention of an accused whose investigation is otherwise stalled?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
JUDGMENT KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.- This order dispose of Crl. Misc. Nos. 7538-B and 7582-B of 2000 filed by Aamar Rasheed and Zakir Ali Naseem respectively. The allegation against both of them is that they in-collusion with other had committed a fraud of Rs. 65,00,000 in' the Education Department of Municipal Corporation, Lahore. Both the petitioners were arrested on 3.10.2000. Muhammad Aslam Niazi, LO is present in Court. He submits that petitioners remained on physical remand for 13 days but nothing was recovered from them. He further submits that Zakir Ali Naseem, petitioner was Assistant Education Officer but he was posing himself Drawing Disbursing Officer and he had been making wrong entries. In the bills. As far as Aamar Rashid petitioner is concerned, he is Assistant Accountant in Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore, that he has committed a fraud of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in fact main accused in this case is Muhammad Riaz, Director Education who had authorised Khalid Saeed Butt, Clear, now fugitive .From law, who had'' committed a fraud. He further submits that Zakir Ali Naseem never posed himself as D.D.O. As far as Aamar Rashid is concerned the only allegation against him is that he forwarded the bills. I have asked the learned Addl. A--G., Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana to assist me in this case. He submits that petitioners are Government servants they should be allowed bail to defend themselves before the Court of law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I had allowed bail to one of the accused Aurangzeb in Crl. Misc. No. 6582-B/2000. Petitioner was arrested on 3.10.2000 and since then he is in Jail.-Specimen signatures of relevant persons have been sent to the Hand writing Expert but till today no result thereof has been received. About three months have passed but the challan has not been submitted so far. The 1,0. Present in Court submits that there is no possibility of submitting the challan in Court in near future because many accused 4n this case are yet to be arrested. He admits that he had not taken the specimen signature of Muhammad Riaz, Director Education. After hearing the submissions made by the parties, I am-of the considered view that petitioners cannot be kept in judicial custody for indefinite period. In this view of the matter, the case of the petitioners falls under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And even keeping in view that learned Addl. A.-G.
Is not in a position to oppose the legal Position of the case, I admit both the petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,0, 000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.