Nasir Mehmood vs The State and others
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was accused of theft regarding electric wires of railway lines under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the evidentiary material available to the prosecution. The Supreme Court observed that there was no direct evidence linking the petitioner to the act of theft, as he was not witnessed committing the offence, nor were the stolen wires recovered from his possession. The court noted that the stolen property was recovered from a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and the prosecution had not sought cancellation of that bail. Furthermore, the court held that the evidentiary value of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remained to be determined at trial. Consequently, the Court granted the petition, converting it into an appeal and allowing bail, establishing that where evidence is insufficient and a co-accused is already on bail, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the stolen property was recovered from a co-accused who has already been released on bail?
- Does the recovery of tools, without the recovery of the stolen property itself, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a theft case?
- What is the impact of a co-accused's release on bail on the bail application of another accused in the same case?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J. -- The prosecution has levelled allegations against the petitioner that he was involved in committing theft in respect of electric wires of Railway lines and a case under Section 379, PPC was registered.
2. There is nothing on the record as he has neither been seen while committing offence and cutting of wires or stealing the same nor the sarge have been recovered from him and the only evidence which has been collected by the prosecution is that certain tools used for cutting of said wires have been recovered from him. The case property i,e,, electric wires, have been recovered from his co-accused who has already been released on bail and against whom no application for cancellation of bail has been moved by the prosecution. The other evidence which is in the hands of the prosecution is the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C: of the accused involving him, the evidentiary value of which is still to be seen during the trial.
3. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, while converting this petition into appeal and allowing the same, the petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.