Allah Ditta vs The State
This matter arose out of a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in respect of FIR No. 16 registered at Police Station City, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif, under Sections 468, 471, and 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The precise allegation was that the petitioner submitted a medical certificate before a court that was subsequently determined to be fake upon an inquiry conducted by a Magistrate Section 30. The legal question before the High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and investigation is complete. The Lahore High Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The Court held that none of the alleged offences attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., bail cannot be withheld as a punishment or as a substitute for punishment, and the petitioner had no previous criminal history.
- Can bail be withheld as a punishment or as a substitute for punishment when an accused is in judicial custody?
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail where the charged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the investigation is complete?
- Does the lack of previous involvement in criminal cases support the grant of post-arrest bail in non-prohibitory clause offences?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 193, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMOOD, Allah Ditta petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 16 registered at Police Station City, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif on 14.1.2002 for offences under Sections 468/471/193,PPC.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he produced a medical certificate before the Court of the complainant which was subsequently found to be fake during the inquiry held by Magistrate Section 10,. Arifwala. The investigation of this case has been completed and the petitioner is in jail.
3. I have heard the leamed counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. None of the offences attracts prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail cannot be withheld as a punishment or as substitute for punishment. The petitioner has no previous history of his involvement in any criminal case. Therefore, relying on the case of Tarig Bashir v. The Slate (PLD 1995 SC 34) I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety 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.