TANVEER BAIG vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Tanveer Baig, in relation to F.I.R. No. 36/2005, originally registered under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, later substituted by Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing substantially similar allegations had already been granted bail. The Court observed that the only distinguishing factor—the recovery of a motorcycle—was unreliable, as the motorcycle was not mentioned in the initial F.I.R. and was recovered from a deserted, open place rather than the petitioner's exclusive possession. Finding no material distinction between the petitioner's case and that of the co-accused, the Court held that the petitioner should be treated equally. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the case against a petitioner is not distinguishable from that of a co-accused already granted bail, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the case against them is not distinguishable from that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Does the recovery of property from an open, deserted place constitute exclusive possession sufficient to deny bail?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Tanveer Baig petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,36 registered at Police Station Karachi, District Gujrat on 1-3-2005 in respect of an offence under section 392, P.P.C. During the investigating section 392, P.P.C. Was deleted from the F.I.R. And the same was substituted by section 395, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Yousuf has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 27-9-2005 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,6152-B of 2005. It is not disputed that the case against the present petitioner is not substantiality dissimilar to or distinguishable from the case against the co-accused. The only difference between the case of present petitioner and that of the above-mentioned co-accused is that during the investigation a motor-cycle had allegedly been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. In this context I have noticed that in the F.I.R. The complainant had never alleged that any motor-cycle had been taken away by the culprit from his house. It was only through his supplementary statement dated 4-3-2005 that the complainant had alleged for the first time that his motor-cycle had also been taken away by the culprits at the time of the occurrence. The record of investigation of this case shows that the relevant motorcycle had been recovered by the police from a deserted and open place and it cannot be said at this stage with any degree of certainty that the said motor-cycle had been recovered from the exclusive possession of the petitioner. All the other aspects of this case against the petitioner are identical to those relevant to the above- mentioned co-accused who has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court and, thus, there is no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.