KHITAB GUL and anothers vs MUHAMMAD AMIR and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioners, who were charged under sections 385 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 25 of the Telegraph Act 1885, and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, following allegations of extortion and threats received via mobile phone calls. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established a sufficient prima facie case to deny bail, given the available evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that while the complainant reported receiving threatening calls demanding money, the prosecution failed to produce material evidence linking the petitioners' mobile sets or SIM cards to the specific numbers used for the threats. Consequently, the court found the case against the petitioners to be one of further inquiry and granted them bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution lacks direct evidence connecting the accused to the alleged criminal acts—specifically in cases relying on electronic communication—the matter warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does the absence of evidence linking an accused's mobile device to threatening calls constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie connection between the accused and the alleged criminal communication?
- Section 385, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 25, Telegraph Act 1885
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The petitioners stand charged in case F.I.R. No, 326 dated 27-4-2014 registered under sections 385/506 P.P.C. Read with section 25 Telegraph Act and section 7 ATA by Police Station Agha Mir Jani Shah, Peshawar and accordingly they are seeking bail through the instant bail petition.
2. Briefly stated facts, leading to the instant petition, are that the complainant, through a written application, made to the SHO concerned, reported that he is a business man by profession and received call on his cell phone from Mobile No, 0305-9574199, whereby a demand of Rs,10 million was made from him and was also threatened whereafter, he received three other calls from Mobile Nos. 0341-0897910, 0347-0997066 and 6336-9971777 at different intervals allegedly from one Assadullah and again threats were hurled to him, hence, the F.I.R. Ibid.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the accused-petitioners are innocent and have been falsely involved in the case for patent mala fide reasons; that there is nothing available on record to remotely connect the accused-petitioners with the commission of the offence and thus they are entitled to bail.
4. Since the complainant is not in !Attendance despite proper service, therefore, the learned AAG for the State came over to the rostrum and resisted the bail petition on almost the same grounds as detailed in the impugned order . Of the learned Judge ATC-I Peshawar.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
5. As evident from the F.I.R., the complainant received calls from various numbers on his cell phone, whereby monetary demand was made from him and even life threats were hurled to him and his family. Though some mobile DATA has been placed on file, but at the moment, there is no material available on file, whereby it can be ascertained that either calls were made from the mobile phones of the petitioners to the complainant or the SIMs from which threatening calls were made to the complainant were used from the mobile sets of the petitioners. The same factor alone takes the matter to one of further enquiry and resultantly, the petitioners are held entitled to the concession of bail.
' Accordingly, this petition for bail is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of rupees two lac (Rs 2,00,000) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
' Before parting with this order, it is directed that any observations recorded in this order, being purely tentative in nature, should in no way prejudice the proceedings before the learned trial Court where the case be decided strictly on its own merits after recording evidence.