Case Law (Bail in CrPC 497, Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420 & 109--Post-arrest bail, grant of--)

PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Note) 43

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497--Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, (XL of 2016), Ss. 7, 13, 14 & 16--Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, (XVII of 1996), S. 31(1)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419, 420 & 109--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Involvement of accused in illegal voice termination caused huge loss to Government--Offences with which had charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Accused has also not previous record of having committed such crime, as such in such like situation, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and no exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of bail has been agitated by prosecution--Investigation was completed and accused was no more required to police for further investigation, therefore, keeping petitioner behind bars would not serve any useful purpose--Bail was allowed.                                   

                                                                                             [Para 4] A

Mr. Abdul Qayyum Rao, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Abdul Wadood, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 22.10.2019.

 PLJ 2020 Cr.C. (Note) 43
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Anwaarul Haq Pannun, J.
MUHAMMAD HAMEED KHAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE  and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 6262-B of 2019, decided on 22.10.2019.

Order

After having been unsuccessful before the learned lower Court, Muhammad Hameed Khan, petitioner through the instant petition seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 32/2019 dated 30.09.2019, under Sections 7, 13, 14, 16 of PECA-2016, 31(1) PT (RO) Act-1996 read with Section 419, 420, 109, PPC registered at Police Station FIA/CCRC, District Multan.

2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he is involved in illegal voice termination, caused hug loss to the Government, hence this case.

3. Heard. Record perused.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is straightway observed that the offences with which the petitioner has been charged, do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He has also not previous record of having committed such crime, as such in such like situation, grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception and no exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of bail has been agitated by the prosecution. The investigation is complete and the petitioner is no more required to police for further investigation, therefore, keeping the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose. Resultantly, the application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed