2001 PLP 1140 (MLD)

Khalid Bashir v. The State PLD 1995 SC 34 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Principle‑‑‑Where offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. the accused would be entitled to grant of bail as a matter of right and in such‑like cases grant of bail was a rule and refusal was an exception. Rashdeen Nawaz for Petitioners. Kamran Babar for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th September, 2000. This is an application for bail before arrest in a case F.I.R. No. 134 of 2000 which was registered on 1‑6‑2000 in F.I.A. on the complaint of Sami‑ur‑Rehman, Inspector under the Passport Act. Petitioners after registration of the F.I.R. applied for bail before arrest which was granted to them but the same was not confirmed on 29‑6‑2000. They were taken into custody. As far as Petitioner No.2 Yasmeen Ibrar was concerned, she was sent to judicial lock‑up but Zaheer Chaudhary, petitioner remained on remand for 7 days but nothing incriminating was recovered from him. Thereafter, both of them applied for bail after arrest in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate who granted them bail on 19‑7‑2000. The complainant filed an application for cancellation of their bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, summoned the respondents petitioners heard the application and then cancelled the bail granted to the present petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners applied for bail before arrest before this Court which was granted to them on 20‑9‑2000. Today it is fixed for confirmation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that offence alleged against the present petitioners does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that they were allowed bail after arrest. There was no allegation of misusing the concession of bail against them. He further submits that considerations for bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. 3: On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents very vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners are persons of desperate character as their father was very famous smuggler. Zaheer Chaudhary is also a P.O. in some cases. He submits that the minor son of the complainant was taken out from the country by Farrah Chaudhary, his ex‑wife in connivance with the present petitioners. He further submits that remedy of bail is only granted to innocent citizens.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied before me that both the petitioners were allowed bail after arrest. It has also not been denied that offence alleged against the petitioners does not / fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and the maximum sentence provided in the casewilsN3 years. I do not think that any useful purpose can be served by sending them behind the bars. I Considerations for granting bail and for cancellation of bail are totally different. While referring PLD 1995 SC 34 (Khalid Bashir v. The State and keeping m view the offence as does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. the petitioners, as a matter of right, are entitled to grant of bail and in such‑like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. Interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed. H.B.T./Z‑41/L Bail confirmed.