GHULAM SHABBIR vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 458, 380, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident where unknown persons allegedly entered a house, held occupants at knifepoint, and stole valuables. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the F.I.R., had not undergone an identification test, and whose alleged recovery fell under a non-prohibitory offense, was entitled to bail. The Court held that the absence of the petitioner's name in the F.I.R., the lack of an identification test, and the one-month delay in lodging the F.I.R. constituted grounds for further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court determined that the alleged offense of receiving stolen property under section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that mere involvement in other cases does not preclude the grant of bail to a previous non-convict.
- Does the absence of an identification test and a delay in lodging the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an offense under section 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petitioner be denied bail solely on the basis of involvement in other criminal cases if they are a previous non-convict?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Ghulam Shabbir petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 356 of 2001 dated 22-10-2001, under sections 458/380/411, P.P.C, Police Station City, Layyah.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that about one month prior to the registration of the case, the complainant Muhammad Khalid alongwith his brother Muhammad Farooq and mother Mst. Mukhtar Begum was present in his house. On the knock at the outer door it was opened. Thereafter, two unknown women entered into their house. They said to them that they were in need of house on rent. Two unknown persons, the features of whom have been given in the F. I. R. Also entered the same with them. They took out dagger from their Dab and took Farooq P.W. Inside the room on dagger point. They asked them to handover whatever they had with them. Their mother out of fear handed over to them the keys of the box. They and the women opened the iron-box and took away therefrom gold ornaments, cash amount Rs.11,600 and unstitched clothes total valued Rs.35,600 and then shut them in a room and bolted the door from outside and went away in a white colour Suzuki Car No.561/L.D.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in due to altercation with the S.H.O. Concerned; that he is not nominated in the F.I.R; that there is delay of one month in lodging the F.I.R; that his no identification test has been held; that the recovery has been planted upon him to strengthen the prosecution case; that maximum the offence under section 411, P. P. C., is made out against him, even if the prosecution case is taken as true, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars for the last 1-1/2 years and is previous non-convict; that his involvement in other cases is no ground to refuse him bail and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCM R 412.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that the recovery has been effected from him; and that he is involved in a number of cases of similar type.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the record.
6. The fact remains that he is not named in the F.I.R. He was also not put to any identification test.
There is delay of one month in lodging the P.I.R. All these facts make his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. As regards the alleged recovery from him, the same maximum can attract an offence under section 411, P.P.C. Even if the prosecution case as it is taken as true. The same is not covered within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last 1-1/2 years and admittedly previously non-convict.
His mere involvement in other cases would not come in his way to the grant of bail. In this regard reference is made to Muhammad Rafique v. The State 1997 SCM R 412.
9. In these circumstances, I accept this petition and admit him on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Raja YASIR RAFIQUE vs THE STATE and another 2011 P Cr. L J 491