MANZOOR Alias JOORI vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail after arrest application filed by the petitioner under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, in respect of FIR No. 701 registered under Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, Arifwala, involving allegations of robbery at pistol point. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the lack of recovery, the duration of incarceration, and an affidavit of innocence sworn by the complainant. The Lahore High Court accepted the application and held that the case fell within the purview of Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the petitioner was not a previous convict, no recovery was effected from him, trial conclusion was not likely in the near future, and the complainant had sworn an affidavit supporting his innocence. The key principle laid down is that where no recovery is made, the accused is not a previous convict, trial is delayed, and the complainant swears an affidavit of innocence, the case may fall for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an affidavit of innocence sworn by the complainant warrants the grant of post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the absence of any recovery from the accused support a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial serve as a ground for granting bail in a robbery case under section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under section 497, Cr. P.C. Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No.701 registered on 17-12-1997 at Police Station Sadar, Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif under section 392, P.P.C.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R., recorded on the statement 'of Muhammad Siddiq, is that on 10-12- 1997 at about 5-00 p.m. Complainant alongwith Muhammad Rafiq and Muhammad Ramzan boarded a bus at Adda Dilwala and started their journey towards Chak No.141/EB. When they reached near the bank of 3-L, they saw three persons on a motorcycle. They stopped near the complainant and ordered to hands up on pistol point. Rs.3,000 alongwith purse, I.D. Card and a .30 bore pistol which was licensee pistol of the complainant were snatched. Muhammad Ahmad, Irshad and Manzoor Ahmad were armed with different weapons and had participated in the occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and an affidavit has been sworn by the complainant in favour of the petitioner to this extent which is on the record of the police. It is also contended that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he is behind the bars since about one and half years: Thus, the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner remained fugitive from justice and has lost normal right; that case falls within the purview of prohibitory clause; and that the opinion of the police is not binding upon the Courts and the two of the nominated accused are still at large.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The investigation of the case is still under process and without any progress in the trial, so far, there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future. Even otherwise, an affidavit has been sworn by the complainant party about the innocence of the petitioner, who is one of the nominated accused in the F.I.R.
Nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he is not previous convict. The case falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He shall be released on ball subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.