GHULAM RASHEED vs THE STATE and another

' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---Having remained unsuccessful to get the concession of bail from the Courts of learned Judicial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge-III Bannu vide orders, dated 27-11-2007 and 22-1-2008 respectively in case F.I.R. No.636, dated 12-8-2007 under sections 409/419/411/420/468/471 and 477-A, P.P.C., the accused/petitioner Ghulam Rasheed has now sought the indulgence of this Court through the application in hand for the same purpose.

2. According to the written report of Samiullah Khan. Tehsilder Baunu addressed to the S.H.O. Of Police Station City Bannu, Mughal Shah Office Qanoongo was handed over the official Cheque book of Account No. 274-1 in the National Bank of Pakistan, Railway Road. Bannu City being run by the Tehsildar Bannu, and he along with some private persons, namey, Iqbal Khan, Sher Dar Ali and Sanaullah Shah had fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.85,80,728 from the said account through different cheques. Such report was incorporated into F.I.R. Ibid and consequently the aforesaid accused were arrested therein. During Investigation, Sanaullah Shah accused disclosed that he with the active connivance of accused Zeeshan, Imdadullah, Ghulam Rashid and Shahjeen had committed the offence. After his arrest, Ghulam Rasheed, accused/petitioner, applied for his release on bail to the learned lower Courts but his efforts proved abortive as mentioned above and hence this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And his involvement in the case is merely on the statement of co-accused Sanaullah Shah recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Who has also not assigned any specific role to him. He argued that the said statement of co-accused of the petitioner cannot be taken into account for refusing bail to him. He urged that some of co-accused of the petitioner have already been released on bail and on the principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail.

4. In rebuttal, the learned Deputy Advocate-General resisted the bail prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the principal accused Sanaullah Shah had named the accused/petitioner as his companion in committing the crime. He argued that out of the encashed and embezzled amount of Rs.85,80,725, the accused/petitioner has received his share of Rs.50,000 which was recovered on his pointation in presence of witnesses. His argument was that the bail prayer of co-accused of the petitioner attributed identical role has been declined upto this Court and, therefore, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail.

5. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R. By the complainant Samiullah Khan and he is only under arrest on the statement of Sanaullah Shah co-accused, recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. It is by now a well settled principle of criminal law that statement of co-accused cannot be used against the other accused involved in the occurrence. No specific role has been assigned to him. At present, from the available facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner is arguable for the purposes of bail and falls within the ambit of further inquiry.

7. Resultantly, this application is accepted and the accused/petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. Two lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.

8. Above are the reasons for my short order of even date.