Hameed Khan vs The State And Another
The petitioner, Hameed Khan, sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the alleged theft of agricultural equipment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the nature of the evidence against him. The petitioner argued that the case was a result of mala fides due to a prior application filed against the complainant, and that the only evidence connecting him to the crime was the statement of co-accused persons who had not yet been arrested. The Court noted that the complainant failed to appear despite being informed and that the prosecution admitted the co-accused remained at large. Finding that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail. The judgment reinforces the principle that where the prosecution's case rests solely on the uncorroborated statement of co-accused who have not been arrested, a case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether a case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the only evidence against the accused is the statement of unarrested co-accused?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the prosecution fails to produce evidence beyond the statements of co-accused?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J. - Petitioner Hameed Khan has moved this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No 381 of 2012, dated 21.09.2012 registered under Section 379, P.P.C, at Police Station Khuddian, District Kasur allegedly for haying 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 ah 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 Just 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 tides 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 Just Masih have not been arrested and alleged recover at the instance of co- accused Muhammad Yasin was effected from the shop of said persons.