MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akhtar and Muhammad Nawaz, who were accused of tampering with revenue records in their capacity as public officials. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail, given that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure statute and that the investigation was complete. The Court held that since the petitioners had been incarcerated for five months, the challan had already been submitted, and they were no longer required by the police for investigation, there was no justification for their continued detention. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, granting bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond. The principle laid down is that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the investigation is complete, bail should generally be granted.
- Is bail grantable when the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the submission of the challan and the completion of police investigation support a grant of bail?
- Should bail be granted when the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period and is no longer required for investigation?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The allegation against Muhammad Akhtar is that he was Patwari and he tampered with the Revenue Record in connivance with Muhammad Nawaz who is also petitioner in this case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners were arrested on 24-6-2000. Five months have been passed and nothing incriminating has been recovered from them. He submits that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. On the other hand learned Additional Advocate-General Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that though, offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. But they are named in the F.I.R. And they both have caused monetary damages to one Muhammad Amir vendee in this case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case petitioners were arrested on 24-6-2000 and since then they are behind the bar. Challan has already been submitted in the Court and the petitioners are no more required by the police. Offence also does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and allow bail to the petitioner in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.