MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed on behalf of the accused Muhammad Tariq in relation to F.I.R. No. 167 of 2011 registered at Police Station North Nazimabad concerning offences of robbery and house trespass. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of statutory or general parity with a co-accused who was allegedly granted bail, lack of direct recovery from the applicant, and his claimed juvenile age. The Sindh High Court held that the bail application should be allowed, noting that the trial court glossed over the plea regarding the co-accused's bail and that the prosecution failed to verify the position from the investigating officer despite a pending application. The key principle laid down is that parity of treatment regarding bail vis-a-vis a co-accused must be properly addressed by the courts and investigated by the prosecution rather than glossed over.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of direct recovery of robbed articles from an accused justify the grant of bail?
- How should the prosecution and trial court address pleas of parity and co-accused bail raised by an applicant?
ORDER
1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.-- F.I.R. No,167 of 2011 was recorded at Police Station North Nazimabad on 25-4-2011. The complainant stated main door of his house was open when at about 11-30 p.m.
2. Three boys entered and closed it from inside. They made his family members sit in one room and one person stood guard over them while the other two persons robbed gold ornaments and licensed pistol. Sound of police vehicle came. One boy jumped from the window while two others were arrested by the police. Upon physical search from co-accused one pistol in his pocket was recovered. Nothing was recovered from the present applicant. It is stated that robbed articles and the pistol were with the accused who had run away.
3. ' Learned counsel for applicant submitted that inspection note of Jai-eWardat states that it was a lawn of 80 sq. Yds. And in only 80 sq. Yds. How can be window opening into another house. This is obviously question of deeper appreciation which can only be done by the trial Court after recording evidence. Therefore, this ground taken by the learned counsel does not, and it was correctly contended by the A.P.-G. Hold water.
4. ' Learned counsel submitted that nothing has been recovered from the present applicant and co- accused has been granted bail vide order dated 23-6-2011. He further submitted that applicant is a person of 15/16 years of age and deserves leniency. Learned A.P.-G. Submitted that no copy of such bail order has been annexed with bail application and as far as age of the applicant is concerned, no evidence establishing age of the applicant has been annexed with application.
5. I have considered the submissions. As far as to the co-accused is concerned, this ground was specifically taken in the Court below and has also been taken in this, bail application. It is strange that this ground was taken in Court below as is reflected it reflects for para 3 of the order of the Court below, but while delivering the judgment such ground has ' Learned A.P.-G. States that bail order of the Court below by which bail was granted to the co- accused has not been annexed with bail application. The fact of bail having been granted to co- accused was pleaded before the Court below and the Court below just choose to gloss over it and the same ground has been taken in this bail application and prosecution has chosen not to ascertain position from the Investigating Officer despite' the fact that this bail application has been pending for more than 2 months.
6. Result of the above discussion is that this bail application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be admitted to bail upon his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.