ARSHAD JAVED vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Arshad Javed, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 440 of 2000 under sections 419, 420, 170, and 171 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of operating a fake military monitoring cell and issuing forged orders. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the alleged offenses and the duration of his incarceration. The Court held that the offenses charged were not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or ten years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing the established legal principle that in non-prohibitory cases, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. The Court further noted that the petitioner's guilt remained to be determined at trial, the investigation was complete, and the challan had already been submitted, rendering the petitioner's continued detention unnecessary.
- Does the grant of bail constitute the rule or the exception in cases where the alleged offenses do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the trial court?
- Does the fact that an accused is nominated in an F.I.R. automatically preclude the grant of bail if the offenses are not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or ten years?
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 171, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,440 of 2000 registered under sections 419, 420, 170, 171, P.P.C. At' Police Station City, Khanpur.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution story according to the F.I.R. Is that the complainant received information that Arshad Javed alongwith other co-accused Muhammad Arshad son of Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Ashgar, Niaz Ahmad, Abdul Shakoor and Dr. Abdul Hameed were running a fake military monitoring cell and issued forged orders in the names of the military officers.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that offence under sections 170, 171, 420, P.P.C. Is bailable and offence under section 419, P.P.C. Is not made out against the petitioner from the contents of the F.I.R. He further contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four years.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And during the investigation, he was found guilty and that the challan against the petitioner has been submitted in the Court.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted position that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. Are not punishable with death, imprisonment for life and ten years, therefore, not covered within the ambit of section 497, Cr.P.C.
And it is settled proposition of law that in such-like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The guilt of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since 18-11-2000 and no more required for further investigation. The challan of the case has been sent to the Court.
6. In view of the above discussion, and without prejudicing the merits of case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Cited by 1 case
- SOHAIL YOUNAS vs The STATE and others 2015 P Cr. L J 563