Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 246/B of 1975, decided on 27th January 1975.

S. 497(1), proviso read with Defence of Pakistan Rules, rr. 32(6) & 210‑Bail in offence under r. 32(6) of D. P. R.‑Offence under r. 32(6) not notified for purpose of r. 210‑Embargo placed on grant of bail by r. 210‑Held, not applicable in circumstances-- Petitioner being a woman, her case, held further, covered by first proviso to S, 497(1), Cr. P. C.‑Bail allowed, in circumstances.‑[Bail].

Serajul Haque v. State 1968 S C M R 251 and Pasco Corporation (Engi neers) v. Mansha Khan 1971 P Cr. L J 136 ref.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

This is an application by Mst. Aqleem Akhtar Rani under section 497/ 498. Cr. P. C. and rule 210 of the D. P. R. She is accused of an offence under section, 32(6) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules on two counts.

2. The facts leading to the application briefly are that her movements were restricted within the limits of Gujrat city under section 32(d), D. P. R. for a period of three months, by an order dated 28‑9‑1974. That period has passed but it is alleged that during that period she had violated the order by leaving the Municipal Limits of Gujrat city on two dates i.e. 13‑11‑1974 and 30‑11‑1974, without obtaining the permission of the detaining authority. The F. I. R. was lodged at Police Station, Saddar Gujrat on information placed before the S. H. O. by the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Rawalpindi, through the Dy. Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The petitioner was accordingly arrested and is being detained in District Jail, Jhelum.

3 & 4 Hence the bail application. The case was called out at 12 noon today. The learned counsel for the, petitioner did not challenge the detention under rule 32(i) (d) but submitted that since the offence under rile 32(6), D. P. R. has not been notified for the purpose' of rule 210, D. P. R, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of course that the restrictions on the grant of bail mentioned in the said rule are not applicable to the petitioner's case and that the question of grant of bail to the petitioner shall have to be considered in the terms of the first part of section 497(1). Cr. P. C. as well as the first proviso to that subsection, which provides for certain exceptions to the general restrictions placed on the grant of baa to person accused of offences punishably with 10 years' R. I. or more. Since the petitioner is not accused of any such offence, she is entitled to the grant of bail as a matter of course.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General who had been given a week's notice initially, was unable to say whether or not the offence in question i.e. the offence under rule 32(6), D. P. R. had been so notified. He obtained adjournment for half an hour to verify that fact and obtain the requisite information. It is now 12‑40 p.m. The case has been called out again. The learned counsel for the petitioner is present but the learned Assistant Advocate‑General has not turned up. I, therefore, take up that the offence in question had not been notified for the purpose of rule 210, D. P. R. This view is fortified by the fact that in the latest book on preventive detention i.e. "Preventive and Security Laws" (1974 Edition) by Ch. Habit) Ahmad mentions at page 143 the offences which have beta notified for the purposes of rule, 210, D. P. R. The only offences mentioned therein are those under rules 42 and 49, D. P. R. and the offence under rule 32(6), D. P. R. is not mentioned. The result is that the embargo placed on the grant of bail by rule 210, C). P. R. would not be applicable to petitioner's case.

6. Having considered the above‑noted contentions I feel that in view of the fact that the petitioner is not accused of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years' R. I. is entitled to bail as a matter of course in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Serajul Haque v. State (1968 S C M R 251). There appears to no good or sufficient reason shown in this case. While bail should be refused to the petitioner notwithstanding that the offence against her was not punishable with the afore‑mentioned sentences. It was also hold by this Court in Pasco Corpn. (Engineers) v. Mansha Khan (1971 P Cr. L J 136) that in cases not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years' R. I., the grant of bail should be the rule and refusal thereof an exception. Moreover, being a woman, her case is covered by the first proviso to section 497(1), Cr. P. C. and on that score too she is entitled to be released on bail. She is, therefore, granted bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.