MUHAMMAD YASIN and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Yasin and Israr Hussain in connection with F.I.R. No. 131 of 2001 registered at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, Sahiwal, for offences under sections 394 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., planted recoveries, and the failure to submit a challan under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 within nine months. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R. with assigned roles, incriminating recoveries were effected, and Section 394 carries a punishment of imprisonment for life, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to a heinous offence falling under the prohibitory clause, bail ought to be refused.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when named in the F.I.R. with specific roles for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life?
- Does a delay in lodging the F.I.R. and alleged planting of recoveries constitute sufficient grounds for bail in heinous offences?
- Whether offences under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Yasin son of Noor Muhammad and Israr Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain, petitioners, have sought their post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,131 of 2001, registered at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, Sahiwal, on 2-5-2001 for offences under sections 394 and 411, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts as given in the F.I.R. Are that petitioners, Muhammad Yasin while armed with a pistol .30 bore and Israr Hussain while armed' with a churri alongwith other co-accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and tried to commit robbery. During the occurrence the complainant also received injuries at the hands of Muhammad Yasin, petitioner.
3. The petitioners were arrested in this case on 11-5-2001 and led to the recovery of pistol and churn along with certain stolen articles.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R., that the recoveries were, in fact, planted upon the petitioners; that the case was registered because of enmity; and that despite the lapse of nine months the challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C, has not been submitted. Before any Court of law, therefore, the petitioners deserve their releases on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed -the grant of bail and contended that the petitioners had committed a heinous offence, which attracts the provisions of the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, in such like case the refusal of bail should be a rule.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It has been noticed that the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. Specific roles were attributed to them. Certain recoveries were effected from the petitioners during investigation. Section 394, P.P.C. Is punishable with imprisonment for life. Reasonable grounds exist to connect the 'petitioners with the afore referred offence.
7. In these circumstances, I fmd no merits in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, the S.H.O. Concerned is directed to submit challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Without any further delay. The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the S.H.O. Concerned.