MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs Malik GOHAR REHMAN and another
This criminal petition arises from the refusal of bail by lower courts to the petitioner, who was charged under sections 411, 420, 458, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, regarding the theft of a motor vehicle. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail based on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had been granted bail. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner’s voluntary confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, coupled with his status as a habitual offender involved in similar criminal cases, established reasonable grounds to believe he was connected to the crime. The Court affirmed that the principle of consistency does not mandate bail where the petitioner's conduct and criminal history render him undeserving of such concession. Furthermore, the Court issued a suo motu notice to the co-accused to show cause why his bail should not be cancelled, noting his role as the primary perpetrator.
- Does the principle of consistency mandate the grant of bail to a petitioner simply because a co-accused has been granted bail?
- Can a voluntary confessional statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute reasonable grounds to deny bail?
- Does the status of a habitual offender justify the refusal of post-arrest bail in theft-related cases?
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' The accused/petitioner was refused the concession of bail by the lower Courts in case registered vide F.I.R. No,157, dated 18-7-2000 under sections 411/420/458/471, P.P.C. Read with section 14 of the Offences Against Property, Police Station Nawanshehr.
2. According to the report the complainant Malik Gohar Rehman on the night of occurrence parked his Car No,RIG-9496 in front of his shop and when on the next morning he came to his shop, he found the car missing. On the written application of the complainant a case was registered against unknown culprits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail by the lower Court as such principle of consistency is very much attracted to the present case and hence the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. Further contended that the petitioner has been ascribed minor role than that of co-accused Iqbal who has been granted bail by the lower Court and that the petitioner is in judicial lock-up since date of his arrest i,e, 17-10-2000; that the vehicle in question was not recovered from his possession.
4. The learned Deputy Advocate-General and the counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application by contending that the petitioner is an habitual offender as he is also involved in so many other cases of such-like nature and the persons involved in such-like criminal offences do not deserve the concession of bail. All the more he had confessed the guilt under section 164, Cr.P.C. Before the Judicial Magistrate.
5. A perusal of the record would show that after his arrest the petitioner has made a voluntarily confessional statement 'admitting his guilt and that of his co-accused. The petitioner is also involved in so many other cases of such-like nature and seems to be a habitual offender which makes the conduct of the petitioner doubtful. Hence prima facie there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner appears to be connected with the crime with which he is charged.
6. Having gone through the record in detail it appears that Muhammad Iqbal co-accused of the petitioner is main accused in the case at whose instance and behest the crime was committed.
The said Iqbal has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping the role played by the said Iqbal in the commission of the crime, a suo motu notice be issued to him as to why his bail should not be cancelled.
7. The petition is dismissed.