ABID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abid Hussain, in connection with F.I.R. No. 304 dated 26-9-2002, registered at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Khanewal, for offences under sections 381-A and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the theft of a motorcycle rickshaw. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail pending trial. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that he had been incarcerated for approximately eight months, and that he had no prior criminal convictions. The State counsel failed to controvert these submissions. Consequently, the Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the accused to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The court affirmed the principle that where an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute and the prosecution fails to rebut the grounds for bail, the accused is entitled to be released pending trial.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of prior criminal convictions support a plea for post-arrest bail?
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Abid Hussain, the petitioner has sought after-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.304, dated 26-9-2002 under sections 381-A/411, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Saddar Chichawatni, District Khanewal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on the preceding night to 26-9-2002 about 8-00 p.m. Motor-cycle Riksha of the complainant was stolen away by some unknown person from the Petrol Pump at Kamalia Road, Chichawatni.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the alleged recovery has taken police; that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; that there is no apprehension of his absconsion or tampering with prosecution evidence; that he is behind the bars for the last about 8 months; and that he of is previous non- convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has not been able to controvert the above contentions.
5. Hence, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.