SHABBIR and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by four individuals, Shabbir, Munir, Muhammad Amir, and Nasir, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged theft of buffaloes. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail pending trial, considering the nature of the offence and the duration of their incarceration. The court, upon reviewing the record, observed that the petitioners had been in custody for over three months and were previous non-convicts. Crucially, the court held that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the accused to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly for first-time offenders.
- Does an offence under Sections 379 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the status of an accused as a previous non-convict a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Shabbir, Munir, Muhammad Amir and Nasir, the petitioners have sought for after-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,2 dated 2-1-2003 under sections 379/411, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the allegation as per F.I.R. Is that they had stolen away 5 buffalos worth Rs,2,35,000 of the complainant from his cattle shed.
3. It has been contended that they have falsely been roped in with mala fide intention of the complainant; that they are behind the bars for the last more than three months; that their case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; and that they are previous non- convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The alleged recovery has taken place. They are behind the bars and previous non-convict.
7. The alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
8. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit them to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate.