ALI vs STATE and another
The petitioner, Ali, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 638 dated 10.9.2012 registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Samanabad, District Faisalabad. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the rule of consistency, given that his name was introduced through a co-accused who was subsequently let off by the complainant, and that similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the petitioner's involvement required further probe and that he was entitled to bail on the ground of consistency, noting also his lack of previous criminal record and period of incarceration. The key principle laid down is that an accused whose case is at par with co-accused who have already been granted bail is entitled to relief on the ground of consistency, and where initial nomination stems from a co-accused later discharged, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with identical roles have already been granted bail?
- Does the introduction of an accused's name through the statement of a co-accused who is subsequently let off by the complainant make the petitioner's involvement one of further probe?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when he has no previous criminal history and has been behind bars for a considerable period without being required for further investigation?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, Ali petitioner has sought post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 638 dated 10.9.2012 registered under Sections 392/411, P.P.C. at Police Station Samanabad, District Faisalabad.
2. In the F.I.R. it was stated that on 5.9.2012 at 6.00 p.m. the complainant was robbed by four persons who were on two motorcycles and in that process, they took away Nokia mobile phone, identity card and Rs, 12,000/- and as such the case was registered on 10.9.2012. One of the accused Muhammad Ahmad was identified and on his information, the petitioner and two others were nominated in this matter. The petitioner was arrested on 14.9.2012 and during investigation he got recovered Rs,2000/- and mobile phone of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that name of the petitioner was introduced on the statement of co-accused Muhammad Ahmad; that later on Muhammad Ahmad was got released by the complainant while stating that he is not the main accused. It is contended that in these circumstances all the subsequent proceedings in which name of the petitioner and others came to light become doubtful; that two of the co-accused, having absolutely the same role, namely, Aqib and Zeeshan were later on allowed bail by the learned trial Court, although certain recoveries were affected from them; that case of the petitioner is at par with that of the co-accused and even the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail petition by submitting that the petitioner got recovered mobile phone which was statedly property of the complainant but admits that his name was introduced by one Muhammad Ahmad who was later on let off by the complainant; that the petitioner has got no previous criminal history of any such like cases; the petitioner is behind the bars for the last three months and is no more required for any further investigation.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Admittedly, in the F.I.R. the name of the petitioner was statedly brought on record on the statement of co-accused Muhammad Ahmad who was later on let off by the complainant as being not involved in this matter. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Zeeshan and Aqib were allowed bail by the learned trial Court. The role of Aqib and Zeeshan is the same as that of the petitioner. The petitioner has no previous history of criminal record. In these circumstances, involvement of the petitioner in this case needs further probe and even on the ground of consistency, the petitioner is entitled to certain exception.
6. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.