HAMEED KHAN vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a petition for the confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged theft of agricultural equipment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the evidentiary material available against him. The petitioner contended that the case was a result of mala fides due to a prior application filed against the complainant and argued that the prosecution's case rested solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused persons who had not yet been arrested. The Court, upon reviewing the record, observed that there was no independent evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence beyond the statements of the co-accused. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that in the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence, the petitioner was entitled to relief pending trial.
- Does a case based solely on the statements of unarrested co-accused persons require further probe for the purpose of bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution fails to present independent evidence connecting the accused to the offence?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Hameed Khan has moved this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR. No, 381 of 2012 dated 21.9.2012 registered under Section 379, PPC at Police Station Khuddain District Kasur allegedly for having committed theft of agricultural equipment valuing Rs, 1,00,000/- in connivance with his co-accused.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that allegations against the petitioner are false, he has not committed any offence; that petitioner filed an application against the complainant on 1.9.2012 and due to that reason instant case has been got lodged against him; that only on the alleged information provided by co-accused Sharif Masih and Juft Masih it was alleged that the alleged theft was committed by the petitioner but both of those accused so far have not been arrested; that except that alleged information no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence; that except the statement of co-accused, who so far have not been arrested, no evidence is available on record, hence, case of petitioner requires further probe falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, mala fides are also reflected, hence, prayed that pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 8.11.2012 be confirmed.
3. Complainant although was telephonically informed by Muhammad Riaz, ASI, which fact is submitted before the Court in writing, but he did not appear. Learned DPG, on the other hand, on the basis of available record although has opposed the bail application, however, admitted that so far Sharif Masih and Juft Masih have not been arrested and alleged recovery at the instance of co- accused Muhammad Yasin was effected from the shop of persons.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. At present except the allegation levelled by the complainant that he identified the stolen articles present in the shop of Sharif Masih and Juft Masih, who disclosed that those articles were sold by the petitioner and his co-accused to him no other evidence is available on record, hence, case of the petitioner requires further probe falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.0 Resultantly, pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 8.11.2012 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within one week from the date of receipt of this order failing which this petition shall be deemed as dismissed.