Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice M.A. ZafarArshad Ali Chohan,Mrs. Farzana Khan, D.P.G. along with Sadiq, A.S.-I.
2008 M L D 1072
2008 M L D 1072
[Lahore]
Before M.A. Zafar, J
KHALID---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.396-M of 2008, decided on 13th March, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 561-A & 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.395 & 412---Petition against including section of Penal Code in the bail granting order when same was not inserted in the F.I.R.---Grievance of petitioner/ accused was that section 412, P.P.C. was not included in the F.I.R., but Jail Authorities were not releasing petitioner on the pretext that in the warrants received by them besides S.395, P.P.C., S.412, P.P.C. was also included in the said warrant---Despite order of the High Court, petitioner had not been released by the Superintendent of Jail ostensibly on the ground that remand order available in jail record also mentioned S.412, P.P.C.---Validity---When accused had been granted bail in main case, any minor offence, not included in bail granting order, would not affect the grant of bail because whenever a court ordered that an accused in a particular F.I.R. be released on bail, order necessarily pertained to that particular F.I.R. in its entirety---Once a person had been granted bail by a court and ordered to be released forthwith, his further detention by the Jail Authorities would actually be illegal detention for which citizens would be perfectly justified to sue for damages---Specification of the penal provisions in the F.I.R. or any related investigation paper would not control the contents of the narration of the F.I.R. and the substance thereof---Jail Authorities were directed by High Court to be careful in the matter in that regard, because once a court admitted a person to bail then that person would cease to be in the custody of the Jail Authorities and was in the custodia legis of the court.
Arshad Ali Chohan for Petitioner.
Mrs. Farzana Khan, D.P.G. along with Sadiq, A.S.-I. with record.
ORDER
M.A. ZAFAR, J.---This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for including section 412, P.P.C. in the bail granting order, dated 29-2-2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said offence was not included in the F.I.R., but the Jail Authorities are not releasing the petitioner on the pretext that in the warrants received by them besides section 395, P.P.C. section 412, P.P.C. is also included in the said warrants.
2. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General on instructions states that section 412, P.P.C. was not added by the police at any stage, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record photocopy of the report submitted by the Superintendent, District Jail Kasur, in which he has clearly mentioned that in the warrants sections 395 and 412, P.P.C. were there.
3. In this view of the matter, the application is accepted and in the bail granting order, dated 29-2-2008 section 412, P.P.C. will be deemed to be part of the order.
4. Notwithstanding the order of this Court the petitioner has not been released by the Superintendent of Jail ostensibly on the ground that the remand order available in the jail record also mentions section 412, P.P.C.
5. It has come to my notice that invariably Jail Authorities refused to release an accused on bail on the ground that some offence is not included in the bail granting order but when the accused has been granted bail in main case, any minor offence not included in bail granting order does not affect the grant of bail because whenever a Court orders that an accused person in a particular F.I.R. be released on bail, the order necessary pertains to that particular F.I.R. in its entirety. This practice of the Jail Authorities which is now becoming rather common of not releasing an accused person notwithstanding a Court's Order on the basis of hyper-technicalities like the one in the present case is strongly deprecated. Once a person has been granted bail by a Court and ordered to be released forthwith, his further detention by the Jail Authorities would actually be illegal detention for which citizens would be perfectly justified to sue for damages. Specification of the penal provision in the F.I.R. or any related investigation paper does not control the contents of the narration of the F.I.R. and the substance thereof. The Jail Authorities are directed to be careful in the matter in this regard because once a Court admits a person to bail then that person ceases to be in the custody of the Jail Authorities and is in the custodia legis of the Court.
H.B.T./K-11/L Petition allowed.