DILSHAD AHMED vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Dilshad Ahmed, in connection with FIR No. 164/14 registered for offences under Sections 395 and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite being implicated in a supplementary statement after a significant delay and despite the recovery of stolen property from him. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, emphasizing that his name was introduced in a supplementary statement without a source after a two-month delay and that no test identification parade was conducted. The Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. It further held that the recovery of stolen items does not automatically preclude bail, especially when the prosecution's case requires further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offence or the recovery of property does not bar bail when the accused is a first-time offender, investigation is complete, and the prosecution case warrants further inquiry.
- Does the recovery of stolen property from an accused automatically preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted based on the rule of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have already been released?
- Is a delay of over two months in naming an accused in a supplementary statement a valid ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Dilshad Ahmed petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 164/14, dated 24.06.2014 registered at Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali in respect of offences under Sections 395/412, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 10.09.2014, after two months and six days of the occurrence and that too without any source. Admittedly no test identification parade has been held in this case so as to positively connect the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. As a result of investigation it has come on record that the petitioner has been providing information to his co-accused to facilitate them to commit dacoity on the shop of the complainant. Three co-accused of the petitioner namely Imtiaz, Javed Iqbal and Muhammad Muneeb with the same role had already been allowed bail and the only distinguishable feature in the cases of above-mentioned co-accused and that of the present petitioner is that the latter has got recovered gold whereas nothing was recovered from the above-mentioned co-accused. In this context I may observe here that effecting of recovery from an accused does not by itself create any hurdle in the way of discretionary relief especially when the accused otherwise made case of post-arrest bail after creating doubt in prosecution story.
Even otherwise the worth and penitentiary value of such type of recovery is to be considered by the learned trial Court at the time ot trial after recording of evidence because so for the prosecution is not sure that it was none else but the petitioner who along with his co-accused entered into the shop of the complainant and looted the recovered articles. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since 22.10.2014, investigation qua the petitioner is complete, the person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner has make out his case on the basis of rule of consistency as well as that of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section C" 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.