ALLAH BAKHSH alias BUTT vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur, involving allegations of robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given his non-nomination in the initial F.I.R., the lack of an identification parade, questionable recovery of cash, and the principle of consistency regarding a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The court held that the petitioner's case called for further inquiry into his guilt, as he was only named in a supplementary statement, no identification parade was conducted, the recovered cash was not conclusively linked to the robbed amount, and a co-accused with an identical role was already released on bail. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down the principle that mere recovery of cash without positive identification as the robbed property is doubtful, and that the rule of consistency applies when an accused's role is identical to that of a co-accused granted bail.
- Whether an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. and implicated only through a supplementary statement without an identification parade is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the mere recovery of cash suffice to establish involvement in a robbery when it is not proven to be the exact robbed money?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when granting bail to an accused whose role is identical to that of a co-accused already released on bail?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.-The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 185/2008 dated 8-5-2008 registered under sections 395/412 P.P.C, at Police Station Sarai Mughal District Kasur.
2. Precise allegations against the p A etitioner as per. Supplementary statement emanating from the aforesaid F.I.R, are that he had committed robbery in the house of complainant and had stolen Rs,4,70,000 along with gold ornaments as well as Nokia Mobile Phone.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R, he is rather involved in the supplementary statement. He further submits that no identification parade has been held to identify the petitioner. Recovery effected from the petitioner was Rs,55,000. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence available on record against the petitioner. He lastly submits that co-accused Ghafar has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and role of the petitioner is identical with that of co-accused, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also allowed bail.
4. Learned D.P.G, opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that recovery has already been effected from the petitioner which is sufficient evidence for the involvement of the petitioner in the above said case. The petitioner has committed heinous offence and the offences under which the present petitioner is liable to be tried fall in the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
He lastly. Submits that the challan of the case has been submitted in the trial Court and trial Court has taken cognizance of the matter, therefore the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G, and have also perused the record. The petitioner is not nominated in the F.I.R, and no role has been attributed to him. He has been involved in this case in the supplementary statement which was recorded subsequently. No identification parade has been held in order to identify the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect evidence on record which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the said offence. As far as question of recovery is concerned, I am afraid there are certain other articles which have also been robbed by the accused persons. Mere recovery of cash amount would not suffice until and unless it is established that the money recovered from the petitioner is exactly the same one which was robbed by him. This aspect of the case would cast serious doubt in ones mind regarding commission of the said offence. Co- accused Ghaffar has already been granted bail by the leamed trial Court and role of the petitioner is identical with that of the co-accused, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the present petitioner be also allowed bail as his case is not in any manner distinguishable from the co-accused who has already been granted bail.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, I therefore, admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
' Petition stands disposed of.
Cited by 2 cases
- Shahbaz Mustafa and another vs The State & another 2025 LHC 4778
- Shahbaz Mustafa Versus State 2026 YLR 564