Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in a robbery case registered under Sections 392 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner was not named in the First Information Report and was arrested solely based on the recovery of a computer during the investigation. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his age, the nature of the evidence against him, and the potential applicability of Section 411 versus Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Court held that the petitioner's involvement constituted a case of further inquiry, noting his advanced age of 59 years, his lack of participation in the actual occurrence, and the uncertainty regarding the specific offence committed. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the determination of the specific offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires the recording of evidence at the trial stage.
- Does the recovery of a single item from an accused, who was not named in the FIR, constitute a case of further inquiry regarding the applicability of Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is an accused person aged 59 years, who is not alleged to have participated in the actual occurrence, entitled to bail when the trial is likely to be delayed?
- Can the determination of whether an offence falls under Section 411 or Section 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be decided at the bail stage, or is it reserved for the trial court?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,177 dated 22-6-2000 registered at Police Station Airport, Rawalpindi under sections 392/412, P.P.C. Read with section 17 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant reported that he was present at his house with other inmates of the house and at about 11-20 a.m. On the call of bell Abuzar driver of the complainant informed him that the visitor is a friend of Zubair brother of complainant residing in Canada and has come from Lahore from condolence of death of his mother. Asim brother of complainant asked his driver to make all the four guests to it in the Drawing Room who was aged 25 to 30 years each. The description of the accused has been mentioned in the F.I.R. The moment they entered the Drawing Room they overpowered the driver of the complainant on gun point and similarly to other inmates of the house and made them to sit in the T.V. Lounge and started searching the house. Meanwhile father of the complainant entered in the house, he was also made to sit in the T.V. Lounge. They made search of the house for one hour and took households in addition to cash of Rs,1, 60,000. All the accused were Punjabi-speaking. They put the articles in their car and ran away. He can identify the accused if brought before him.
3. During investigation one computer was recovered from the petitioner, therefore, he is charged with an offence under section 412, P.P.C. The case is still under investigation and challan has not been submitted. Petitioner was arrested on 11-10-2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He is aged 59 years according to the police record. He had not participated in the occurrence. Mere recovery of computer from him does not constitute an offence under section 412, P.P.C. And at the most he could be charged under section 411, P.P.C. Which does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
5. Learned State Counsel has opposed the giant of bail.
6. Heard. Record perused. Admittedly petitioner is aged 59 years. He has not participated in the occurrence. Only a computer was recovered from him during investigation. Investigating Officer states that petitioner is not involved in any other case. He is an aged man and is behind the bars for the last more than a month. The trial of the case is likely to take considerable long period.
Question whether the offence under section 412, P.P.C. Or 411, P.P.C. Is attracted in the present case shall only be determined after recording evidence by the trial Court. At present suffice it to observe that it is a case of further inquiry qua involvement of the petitioner.
7. For the reasons stated above, petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.