BAKHT ALAM vs The STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 447 registered under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Rustam Mardan, after being refused bail by the lower court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a tentative assessment of the record, the nature of the recovery, and a compromise affidavit from the complainant. The Peshawar High Court held that the mere recovery of a small amount of cash from the petitioner, not definitively linked as stolen property, coupled with the delayed statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the complainant's sworn affidavit expressing no objection to the petitioner's release, made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was allowed. The key principle laid down is that minor recoveries without proof of being stolen property, combined with the complainant's waiver or statement of innocence, can warrant the grant of post-arrest bail under a tentative assessment.
- Whether the recovery of a small amount of cash, without proof of it being stolen property, warrants post-arrest bail?
- Can a complainant's sworn affidavit expressing no objection influence the grant of bail in a dacoity case?
- Does a belated statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 make out a case for further inquiry?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---The petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No, 447 dated 11.12.2014 under sections 395, P.P.C., Police Station Rustam Mardan after being refused the said concession by the learned court below.
2. Arguments heard and available record perused.
2. As detailed in the FIR, on 11.12.2014,the complainant reported to the police that while he along with other inmates of the house were asleep, at 02:15 a.m., 6/7 persons duly armed entered his house and after tying their hands, they took away huge cash amount, laptop, LCD, a mobile set and ear- rings weighing one tola from the mother of the complainant and ID cards. The complainant then recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. On 23.1.2015 and charged the accused-petitioner along with his co-accused for the commission of the offence. In the recovery memo, as against the recoveries of various items at the instance of the other co-accused, only a sum of Rs,50001- was allegedly recovered from the residential room of the accused-petitioner. The mere recovery of such small amount from a person would not per se hold him to be linked with the commission of the offence as long as the same is not proved to be the stolen cash amount from the house of the complainant. More so, it was at the instance of the complainant through his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. When the local police spurred into action against the accused-petitioner.
3. However, the complainant present in the court today along with his duly sworn affidavit (placed on file) states to have satisfied himself about the innocence of the accused-petitioner and expresses his no objection over his release on bail. Taking A a tentative assessment of the available record coupled with the sworn affidavit of the complainant, the case of the accused-petitioner indeed calls for further probe into the matter and thus entitling him to bail.
4. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and the accused petitioner is granted bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,100000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court concerned which shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
5. 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 on its own merits after recording evidence.
Cited by 1 case
- AKHTIAR AHMED Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 2