MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner Muhammad Ramzan sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 286 dated 19-8-2002 registered under Section 363 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Mailsi, District Vehari, on allegations of kidnapping a minor child and occupying the complainant's house. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the minor child was with his grandfather and guardianship litigation was pending before the Guardian Judge, and the child was not recovered from the petitioner, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was consequently accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the involvement of an accused is doubtful and requires further inquiry, particularly in light of pending civil or family litigation regarding the subject matter, post-arrest bail ought to be granted.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the involvement of the accused requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail justified when the subject minor is in the custody of the grandfather and guardianship proceedings are already pending before the Guardian Judge?
- Section 363, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, through the instant petition seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,286 dated 19-8-2002 under section 363, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Saddar Mailsi, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as contained in the F.I.R. Are that complainant 4/5 years ago was married to one Haq Nawaz son of Ghulam Rasool. Two children were born out of their wedlock. Haq Nawaz expired a year ago and she was living with her in-laws. About 8/9 months ago, Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Bakhsh, Allah Yar and Muhammad Ramzan occupied her house and also took away her articles of dowry and also her three years old son and kicked her out of the house.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is real brother of Ghulam Rasool, the grandfather of the child; that the child in fact is with the grandfather and not with him; that the litigation before the Guardian Judge in respect of custody of the minor child is pending and he has no concern at all with the same; that the child was not at all kidnapped; that the child was not recovered from them; that he is behind the bars for last about three months; and that he is previous non-convict.
3-A. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
4. There is with the petition, the copy of the order dated 2-12-2002 recorded on his post-arrest bail petition by Mr. Shahid Rafique learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mailsi. It is evident from the same that the minor child is with his grandfather namely, Ghulam Rasool. The petitioner is stated to be his real brother. There is also with the petition, the copy of an application moved by the complainant before the Guardian A Judge against said Ghulam Rasool for the custody of her minor son. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the Bar that the said petition is still pending adjudication there. The child was not recovered trom him.
5. In these circumstances, it is yet to be seen that if, he (petitioner) in any way can be held for the alleged offence. His case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than three months and a previous non- convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.