WAHIDULLAH vs YOUSAF JAMAL and another
This matter arises from a petition filed by Wahidullah seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent, Yousaf Jamal, who was accused of theft in the petitioner's office but was not named in the initial first information report. The core legal question concerns whether sufficient grounds exist to cancel the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent by the lower court. The Peshawar High Court held that the respondent was rightly allowed bail on merits, noting that no incriminating articles were recovered from his possession and that similar petitions for bail cancellation against co-accused had already been dismissed by the court. The key principle laid down is that bail cancellation applications must be evaluated on merits, and the rule of consistency applies when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been denied bail cancellation. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be cancelled when no incriminating articles are recovered from the accused?
- Does the rule of consistency apply when bail cancellation petitions against co-accused have already been dismissed?
- Is an accused not named in the F.I.R. but implicated subsequently entitled to pre-arrest bail on merits?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.--- Yousaf Jamal, respondent, is accused for alleged theft in the office of Waheed Ullah, petitioner. Respondent was not charged in the F.I.R. But subsequently, in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
2. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession, except that after about one month of the occurrence co-accused Shahid Jamal has produced Rs .4,000 to the police which was given to him by one Tariq Mehmood.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent has been allowed pre-arrest bail, that too, on mysterious manner for which comments of Additional Sessions Judge were called for which would be dealt with administratively.
4. However, as far prayer for cancellation of bail of the present accused is concerned, on merits respondent has been rightly allowed bail, so much so two of his co-accused against whom cancellation was filed i.e. Tariq Mehmood and Shahid Jamal, was also dismissed by this Court in motion. Therefore, even the rule of consistency requires that this application for cancellation of bail cannot be granted.
5. In view of the above, this application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed in limine, being devoid of force. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.