MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Akhtar and another in relation to case F.I.R. No. 200 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given that major charges were deleted during investigation and the remaining offenses largely fell outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since sections 382 and 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 were deleted, most remaining offenses fell outside the prohibitory clause, the applicability of section 452 required further inquiry, the trial had not commenced, and allegations of the petitioners being habitual offenders or land grabbers were unverified, the petitioners were entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where offenses fall outside the prohibitory clause, challan has been submitted without commencement of trial, and allegations of habitual criminality remain unsubstantiated, further inquiry is warranted and post-arrest bail ought to be granted.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when the major offenses in the F.I.R. have been deleted during investigation?
- Does an offense under section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bare allegations that accused persons belong to a land grabber group justify the refusal of bail without supporting evidence?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Akhtar and Ijaz Anwar seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,200 dated 29-5-2003, under sections 365, 382, 427, 452, 337, A.I., 337-F1, 337, H2, 337-L2, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station , Civil Lines, Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 27-5-2003, petitioners came to the foundry of complainant Muhammad. Hussain situated on Chebba Road, Faisalabad and threatened him for vacation of said factory. They also demanded Rs,5,00,000 (Rs, five lac) as Jagga Tax. On the same day, in the evening at about 6-00 p.m. Petitioner Akhtar, Zaheer and ljaz (petitioner) while armed with repeater, pistol and gun .12 bore double barrel alongwith others came to the factory of the complainant and demanded Rs, five lacs.
' They also obtained signatures of the complainant forcibly on some blank papers. They deprived the complainant of his mobile phone, Rs,12,000 in cash etc. The petitioner extended threats of life to the complainant. Some of the accused made firing in his factory and petitioners and Zaheer abducted the complainant in their car forcibly and took him to unknown place and made demand of Rs, 5 lac as ransom. Afterwards, they dropped the complainant at a deserted place, whereafter the case was got registered.
3. During investigation sections 382 and 365, P.P.C. Were deleted. Now the petitioners are challaned in the remaining offences mentioned above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners were arrested on 24-7-2003.
Challan has been submitted. The offence in which they have been challaned do not fall within prohibitory clause except 452, P.P.C. Which is not attracted. The trial has not commenced and its conclusion is likely to take considerable long period.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail by arguing that they are specifically named in the F.I.R. They are habitual and hardened criminals and belong to land grabber group and as such are not entitled to the grant of bail.
6. Learned counsel for the State also adopted the arguments of the counsel for the complainant.
7. Heard. Record perused.
8. Petitioners are behind the bars since 26-7-2000. Sections 382 and 365, P. P . C have been deleted during investigation and except section 452, P.P.C., other offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The F.I.R. To some extent has been disbelieved during investigation. Question whether section 452, P.P.C. Is attracted or not needs further inquiry challan has been submitted but trial, has not commenced which is likely to take considerable long period. Petitioners are not involved in any other case. The bare allegation that they belong to land grabber group and are habitual offenders is not established. The Investigating Officer present in Court when asked whether they are involved in any other case, replied in negative. In the circumstances discussed above, petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing , of bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rs, One lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.