MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs STATE
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was charged alongside co-accused in an FIR involving allegations of theft from a bank safe under Sections 409 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, particularly given that the primary accused had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the principle of consistency, noting that the petitioner's alleged involvement was significantly lesser than that of the main accused who had already secured bail. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the trial had not yet commenced, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and keeping the petitioner incarcerated indefinitely without conviction would be unjust. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, affirming that there is no concept of punishment before conviction and that the case constituted one of further inquiry.
- Is a co-accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if the main accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of prosecution witnesses and the delay in trial justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial when the main accused has been released?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 5 of 2003 dated 19.2.2003 under Sections 409, 109, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered with Police Station F.I.A., C.B.C., Multan.
2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Chief Manager, Prime Commercial Bank, Multan got recorded the above mentioned F.I.R. with the allegation that from the safe of the bank, 3.3 million Pak Rupees, 6800 US Dollars, 2100 Pound Sterling and 5860 Euro were removed. Hence the FIR, 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused namely Israr-ul-Haq, who is the main accused in this case has been allowed bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16-11- 2005. The case of the present petitioner is on better footing. It is further submitted that the allegations against the accused are that 3.3 million Pak Rupees, 6800 US Dollars, 2100 Pound Sterling and 5860 Euro have been stolen by them, out of which only Rs, 4,15,000 are alleged to have been received by the present petitioner even this amount has been recovered from him.
4.Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General NAB submits that the petitioner was guard of the Bank and he was supposed to guard the. interest of bank whereas he joined hands with the other co- accused and facilitated the crime due to which the bank suffered huge losses.
5.Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Deputy Prosecutor, NAB have been heard and record has been perused.
6. It has been noticed that main accused in this case is Israr-ul-Haq, who is responsible for defrauding the Bank of 3.3 million Pak Rupees, 6800 U.S. Dollars, 2100 Pound Sterling and 5860 Euro, out of which the petitioner is said to have received Rs, 4,15,000. The remaining amount was with the main accused, who has been allowed bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16-11-2005.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on the principle of consistency. A case of further enquiry has been made out. The trial has not been concluded even no prosecution witness has been recorded. The petitioner cannot be put behind the bars for indefinite, period.
There is no concept of punishment before conviction.
7. For what has been stated above, while allowing this petition, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.