MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs STATE
This criminal petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Amjad, who was charged under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding allegations of fraud involving a failed investment transaction. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of abscondence, particularly when a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail by the trial court. The Court observed that the co-accused had been granted bail on grounds that the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding no distinguishable features between the petitioner's case and that of the co-accused, the Court applied the principle of consistency. Furthermore, the Court held that where an accused's involvement requires further inquiry, they cannot be detained indefinitely solely as punishment for abscondence. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner post-arrest bail, emphasizing the necessity of consistent treatment for similarly situated co-accused.
- Does the principle of consistency require that a co-accused be granted bail if another co-accused with an identical role has already been released?
- Can an accused be detained in jail indefinitely solely as punishment for abscondence when the case otherwise requires further inquiry?
- Does a dispute involving rendition of accounts and investment transactions fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Amjad son of Ch Sardar Muhammad, petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 553/05 dated 7.12.2005, registered with Police Station Civil Lines, Faisalabad, for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 PPC.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as it unfurled in the FIR registered at the instance of Sarwar Ali Shah son of Muhammad Ali complainant was -that he in connivance with Muhammad Safdar co-accused and others deprived the complainant of Rs, 31,00,000/- on the pretext of investment in a transaction with Army Supply Core with the promise to give him rupees twenty five lac as profit but they neither returned his original amount nor did give its profit.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 31.5.2007 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post- arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who turned down his application vide order dated 7.3.2006. Hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State and have gone through the record.
5. It has been observed that Muhammad Safdar co-accused who had been attributed exactly the same role had been allowed bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 7.3.2006, The reasons which prevailed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in extending the concession of bail to the co-accused inter alia were; that both the parties had filed suits for rendition of accounts against each other which were pending in the Civil Courts; that dispute appeared to be of civil nature and that the offences charged with did not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. The aforesaid bail granting order in favour of Muhammad Safdar had been challenged before this Court in Crl. Misc. No, 3448-CB/2006 which was later on dismissed as having not been pressed. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has not been able to point out any distinguishable feature of the case whereby the concession of bail could be declined to the petitioner in that as already stated the same concession had been extended to his co-accused Muhammad Safdar with exactly similar role.
6. Insofar as the abscondence of the petitioner is concerned, it is admitted by the prosecution that he was arrested on 31.5.2007, as such he is in custody for the last more than four months. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied on an unreported case "Inayatullah v. The State"
(Crl. Misc. No, 600-B/2007) wherein it was held by this Court that where the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offence itself requires further inquiry within the purview of. Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. the petitioner cannot be detained in jail for an indefinite period by way of punishment for his abscondence only.
7. Resultantly keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner is also admitted to bail in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.