Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Tariq ShamimMujeeb-ur-Rehman Hashmi,Muhibb-ul-Hasnain, Advocate for the State along with Khizar Hayat
2006 M L D 1801
2006 M L D 1801
[Lahore]
Before Tariq Shamim, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.1820 of 2006, decided on 25th July, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420 & 406---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Delay of twelve days in lodging F.I.R., had not been explained and false involvement of accused on account thereof could not be ruled out---Accused had been involved in the case by complainant through supplementary statement made by him after lapse of fourteen months---Accused was on physical remand with the police but no recovery was effected from him---Provisions of Ss.420 & 406, P.P.C., prima facie, were not attracted to the case of accused---Even otherwise maximum sentence under Ss.420 & 406, P.P.C. was seven years which was not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was behind the bars for the last six months, but without being any progress in the trial---Accused was no more required by the police as the challan had been submitted---Keeping accused behind the bars would amount to punish him without trial---Tentative assessment of evidence on record revealed that no sufficient evidence was available with the prosecution to connect accused with commission of offences alleged against him---Case of accused squarely fell within S.497(2), Cr.P.C. being one of further inquiry---Accused was allowed bail, in circumstances.
Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Hashmi for Petitioner.
Muhibb-ul-Hasnain, Advocate for the State along with Khizar Hayat, A.S.-I. with record.
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.409 of 2004, dated 18-12-2004 for offences under sections 420/406, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is alleged to have taken car of the complainant which he subsequently sold to some other person fraudulently.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R. nor any specific. role has been attributed to him; that there was a delay of twelve days in lodging of F.I.R. which itself creates doubt in the prosecution story; that the petitioner was involved by the complainant through supplementary statement which was recorded after lapse of fourteen months of the occurrence that although the petitioner was on physical remand with the police but no recovery has been effected from him; that the offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last more than five months. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to the concession, of bail.
4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and perused the record. There is a delay of twelve days in lodging of the F.I.R. which has not been explained and false involvement of the petitioner on account thereof cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has been involved in the case by the complainant through supplementary statement made by him after lapse of fourteen months. The petitioner was on physical remand with the police, however, no recovery was effected from him. The provisions of sections 420 and 406, P.P.C. prima facie are not attracted to the case of the petitioner. In any case the maximum sentence in the aforementioned sections is seven years which is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further, the petitioner was arrested on the 23rd of January, 2006 and he is behind the bars for the last six months without there being any progress in the trial. The petitioner is no more required by the police as the challan has been submitted. Hence, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would amount to punishing him without trial. A tentative assessment of the evidence on record reveals that there is no enough evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offences alleged against him. The case of the petitioner squarely falls within section 497(2), Cr.P.C., being one of further inquiry.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-425/L Bail granted.