JAVAID AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 552 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, involving offences under sections 395, 452, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 148, 149, and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being specifically nominated in the F.I.R. for active participation in the alleged offences, particularly when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement. The Court noted the petitioner's specific nomination, the consistency of eyewitness statements, the recovery of money from the petitioner, and his prior criminal record involving murder and illicit arms. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. for active participation in a serious offence falling under the prohibitory clause, and where there is no plausible reason for false implication, bail should be refused, especially if the accused demonstrates a propensity for violence.
- Does an offence under section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused to an accused who is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and against whom reasonable grounds exist to believe in their involvement?
- Is the prior criminal record of an accused a relevant factor when considering a petition for post-arrest bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Javaid Akhtar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,552 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhang, on 12-11-2002 for offences under sections 395/452/337- F(i)/ 337-F(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. During the investigation section 411, P.P.C. Was added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counset for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that although the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a slight delay yet the reason for that delay had been explained in the F.I.R. Itself. The petitioner had been, specifically nominated in the F.I.R. As one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences and in the F.I.R. An active participation in the alleged incident had been attributed to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., including the injured complainant have so far stood by their statements made before the police, fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner happens to be a brother-in-law (Ham Zulf) of the complainant and no reason has been brought out on the record as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the petitioner in a case of this nature. In his application for bail before the Court of Session, Jhang the petitioner had mentioned in paragraph No,8 thereof that he was present at the spot at the relevant time while he was demanding an amount from the complainant which amount was due from the complainant in connection with a business dispute between the petitioner and the complainant. Unfortunately it is not unlikely or unusual for people in this part of the world to, take law in their own hands for extracting money from their rival disputants through use of force. During the investigation a sum of Rs,1, 00,000 had been recovered from the petitioner's possession. An offence under section 395, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. After having become convinced of the guilt of the petitioner the local police has already submitted a challan against him in this case. According to the order, dated 23-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions. Judge, Jhang the petitioner is also involved in a murder case as well as a case for possession of illicit arms. It, thus, appears that the petitioner may have a propensity to get his way through use of force rather than setling his disputes through peaceful and amicable means.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition, is, therefore, dismissed.