MUHAMMAD WAIZ KHAN alias AWAIS KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of two First Information Reports registered under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, involving allegations of theft of carpets from the stores of the respective complainants. Both FIRs were initially registered against unknown persons. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where he was not nominated in the FIRs and no recovery was effected from his possession despite a considerable period of physical remand. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement constitutes a matter of further inquiry under the circumstances, and consequently allowed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the absence of nomination in the FIR coupled with the lack of recovery from the accused during physical remand brings the case within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused not nominated in the FIR entitled to post-arrest bail when no recovery is made from his possession during physical remand?
- Does the lack of recovery after a considerable period of physical remand make the involvement of an accused a matter of further inquiry?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Waiz Khan alias Awais Khan son of Muhammad Zarif Khan, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,532 of 2000 dated 23-10-2000, under sections 457/380, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh and F.I.R. No,620 of 2000 dated 5-12-2000 registered with the same police station at the instance of Muhammad Arshad Gohar and Mirza Javed Saleh respectively. Both the cases, were registered against unknown persons with the allegations that carpets lying in the store of complainants of both the cases were found stolen.
2. After arrest bail was refused to the petitioner in both the cases by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 17-8-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State have been heard exhaustively.
4. Admittedly the petitioner is not nominated accused in the F.I.Rs ' Subsequently his arrest was shown but nothing has been recovered from his possession despite the fact that he remained on physical remand with the police for considerable period. In view of this fact, the involvement of the petitioner is matter of further inquiry and I am persuaded to allow him bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in each case in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 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.