GHULAM AKBAR vs THE STATE
Through this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 392, 109, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 vide F.I.R. No. 11 of 2003 at Police Station Chowk Azam, District Layyah. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose alleged role was limited to abetment and from whom no recovery was made, made out a case for further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R., no recovery was effected from him, the allegation was merely one of abetment, and he was no longer required for investigation, his case fell within the purview of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warranting further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that an accused person facing a charge of abetment without any recovery or presence in the F.I.R., and whose further detention serves no useful purpose, is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person not named in the F.I.R. and charged only with abetment is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case where no recovery is effected from the accused fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is continued detention of an accused justified when he is no longer required by the police for further investigation?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for the relief of his post-arrest bail in a case registered against him and his co-accused under sections 392/109/411, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,11 of 2003, dated 10-1-2003 at Police Station Chowk Azam, Tehsil and District Layyah.
2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that the offence under section 392 is not applicable against the petitioner whereas offence under section 411, P.P.C. Does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he is behind the bars since 16-1- 2003. It is lastly contended that the allegations against the petitioner are pertaining to the offence under section 109, P.P.C. And that the case of the petitioner is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the grounds that the offence complained against the petitioner falls within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And there is material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime complained therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. Heard both sides and record perused.
5. Record reveals that the allegation against the petitioner is only of abetment. Apart from that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he is also not named in the F.I.R. The leaned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there is no sufficient material on the record to connect the petitioner with the crime complained. He is behind the bars since 16-1-2003 and is no more required by the police for further investigation.
6. In view of the above discussion there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner needs no further inquiry into his guilt and falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Further detention of the petitioner in judicial lock-up will not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.