KHALIQUE vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Khalique, who was accused of theft in F.I.R. No. 29 of 2011. The complainant alleged that the applicant stole his wallet containing Rs. 50,000, two bank cheques, and his CNIC while alighting from a train at Rohri station. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the plausibility of the prosecution's narrative. The Court held that the case against the applicant warranted further inquiry. The Court observed that the stolen items—the wallet, cheques, and CNIC—were never recovered from the applicant. Furthermore, the Court found it highly doubtful that a perpetrator would commit a robbery and then remain standing at a short distance waiting to be arrested by the police. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, ruling that the lack of recovery and the implausible circumstances of the arrest created sufficient doubt to entitle the applicant to bail pending trial.
- Does the failure to recover alleged stolen items from an accused person constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is the implausibility of the prosecution's narrative regarding the circumstances of an arrest a valid consideration for granting bail?
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- F.I.R. No, 29 of 2011 was recorded at P.S. Rohri on 19-7-2011.
2. Complainant was Muhammad Arshad. He stated that he was travelling from Sialkot to Karachi and had Rs,50,000 with him for expenses and two cheques of National Bank and one CNIC in his own name. They were in black colour wallet in pocket of his shalwar. He stated that when the train after going through Pano Aqil stopped at Rohri the present applicant, while alighting from the train took from the pocket of his shawlar his wallet and gave the same to another person and upon complainant making noise, alighted from train and ran away. Patrol police searched for him and he was found standing near a hill. The present applicant was arrested and his companion ran away. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire story prima facie is without any substance because no recovery of wallet, CNIC or cheques has been effected from the present applicant. He stated that Rs, 23,000 were recovered from him but there is no evidence that it was the money which was allegedly stolen from the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that a person after absconding would not stand at a short distance and wait for police to come and arrest him.
3. ' Learned A.P.-G. Opposed grant of bail.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
5. What was alleged to have been robbed was wallet, Rs,50,000, two cheques of National Bank and CNIC. Neither the wallet nor the two cheques nor. CNIC have been recovered from the present applicant. It is stated that Rs,23,000 was recovered from him but there is no evidence that the amount recovered from the present applicant was the amount that had been stolen from the complainant. Moreover, it seems highly doubtful that a person after robbing alighting from train would just stand at a short distance and wait for some one to arrest him. Therefore, the case against the applicant is of further inquiry. Consequently, this application is allowed and the applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail upon his executing P.R. In the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.