Muhammad Hanif vs The State And Another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Hanif in relation to case F.I.R. No. 93 dated 16.3.2010 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Nankana Sahib. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay, lack of previous criminal record, and the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused who was already granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as he has been behind bars since 24.5.2010 without substantive progress in his trial, has no previous criminal record, and stands on an identical footing with his released co-accused. The court laid down the principle that where a case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner shares parity of circumstances with an already-bailed co-accused alongside prolonged incarceration without trial progress, bail ought to be granted.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused with similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of previous criminal record coupled with lack of progress in trial warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the petitioner has undergone prolonged incarceration without substantial trial progress?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J. - The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 93, dated 16.3.2010 under Sections 392 and 411, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Nankana Sahib.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And he is behind the bars since 24.5.2010 without any substantive, progress in his trial; that there is no previous criminal record against the petitioner and his case is at par with the case of his co- accused Muhammad Habib who has already been allowed bail by this Court vide Order dated 30.11.2010 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12785-B of 2010. Further contends that recovery memo, of mobile phone does not contain any serial number of the mobile phone and recovery shown against the petitioner of one ring, mobile phone and pistol is fabricated, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General while vehemently opposing this bail petition contends that case of the petitioner is distinguishable than that of his co-accused Muhammad Habib to the extent of recovery, as recovery of mobile phone is sufficient evidence that connects him with the crime. Further contends that the offence against the petitioner is heinous in nature, hence, he is not entitled for bail.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Be that as it may, the petitioner is behind the bars since 24.5.2010 without any substantive progress in his trial. The investigating officer present in Court confirms that there is no previous criminal record against the petitioner. Co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Habib has already been allowed bail by this Court on 20.11.2010 vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12785-B of 2010 and case of the petitioner is almost at par with the case of his co-accused Muhammad Habib.
In this view of the matter, case of the petitioner falls within sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
And is one of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.