Riaz Ahmad vs The State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Riaz Ahmad in connection with FIR No. 5(2)/2004 registered under Section 5/2/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest, given that he was not nominated in the FIR, the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and co-accused beneficiaries of the disputed mutation have already been enlarged on bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency and the fact that the alleged offences do not attract the prohibitory clause. The court laid down the principle that where co-accused beneficiaries of an alleged fraudulent mutation have been granted bail and the penal provisions do not fall within the prohibitory clause, a similarly situated petitioner not named in the FIR is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency.
- Whether a petitioner not nominated in the FIR is entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the rule of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose co-accused beneficiaries have already been released on bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration and non-nomination in the FIR warrant the concession of bail in corruption and forgery cases?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J. Petitioner has sought his bail after arrest in case FIR No. 5(2)/2004, dated 13.8.2004 registered u/s. 5/2/47, PCA read with Section 420/467/468, PPC on the complaint of Abdul Qayyum Khan, at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Muzaffargarh,
2. Precisely the facts as per prosecution story are that Abdul Qayyum Khan complaint donated his land measuring 43 kanals and 4 marlas in favour of Jamia Hameed Taleemul Quran, Kot Sultan, District Leiah. He alleged than on the instigation of Muhammad Ilyas through another "Waqafnama" the land owned and possessed by his son namely Anwar Ahmad Khan was proposed and he handed over the same temporarily to seminary. Consequently Muhammad Ilyas got sanctioned site plan from the-' Municipal Committee. The allegation against petitioner is that he got sanctioned mutation in collusion with his co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that offence against the petitioner dose not fall within prohibitory clause; that at the time of occurrence petitioner was not Patwari of Halqa concerned and even the beneficiaries of mutation have been bailed out and under the rule of consistency petitioner also deserves for the concession of bail.
4. . On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that petitioner has been found guilty and connected with off the and is not entitled for concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner is not nominated the FIR. He was arrested on 10.6.2005 and is behind the bars so far. Offence against the petitioner dose not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Even the beneficiaries of the mutation have already been granted bails and under the rule of consistency petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.