JAFFAR MEHMOOD and others vs The STATE and others
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Jaffar Mehmood and Khalid Mehmood in case FIR No. 555-2014 registered under Sections 462-B, 462-F, and 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Rajanpur, concerning the alleged theft of fuel by tampering with a high-pressure pipeline. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when they were not nominated in the FIR, were introduced months later via a supplementary statement lacking a plausible source of information, no identification parade was held, and a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that involvement based on suspicion and delayed supplementary statements without connecting evidence does not bring the case firmly within the prohibitory clause, and that the petitioners are entitled to bail on merits as well as under the rule of consistency alongside their co-accused. The key principle laid down is that grave suspicion cannot substitute for connecting evidence, and a delayed supplementary statement naming accused persons without disclosing the source of information does not justify withholding post-arrest bail, particularly when co-accused have been granted the same relief.
- Whether an accused named belatedly through a supplementary statement without a plausible source of information is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does suspicion, no matter how grave, take the place of connecting evidence for refusing bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the basis of the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been enlarged on bail?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars for an indefinite period when the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future?
- Section 462-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 462-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.---Jaffar Mehmood and Khalid Mehmood, the accused- petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No.555- 2014 dated 19.09.2014, registered under Sections 462-B, 462-F, 379, P.P.C., at Police Station City Rajanpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that during the night of 18/19.09.2014 they while tampering with the high pressure fuel pipe line through a clump committed the theft of the fuel and caused loss to the public ex-chequer.
3. Arguments heard and record perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are not nominated accused of the FIR for committing the theft of fuel, but their names have been introduced through supplementary statement made on 05.03.2015, wherein no plausible source of information has been given. No identification parade has been held in this case regarding the guilt of the petitioners. The assertion of the complainant is not admissible in evidence as suspicions how grave cannot take place the connecting evidence qua the guilt of the present petitioners; Reliance is placed on "Jaffar and others v. The State" (1980 SCM R 784). It has also been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as "Naeem Akhtar v.
The State" (1996 SCM R 511) that supplementary statement made by the complainant in the case did not disclose as to how actually he came to know the name of the petitioners when in-fact they were neither known to the accused petitioners nor he had disclosed their names in the FIR. The petitioners, therefore, could not be reasonably believed to have committed the offence which falls within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. During the physical remand of the petitioners, nothing has been recovered, but they have been involved in this case on the basis of suspicion and hearsay evidence.
5.It is also asserted that the petitioners are also involved in other case, but they are not previously convicted, so their involvement in other case does not dis entitle them from the concession of bail.
Even otherwise Ghulam Sarwar, co-accused of the petitioners has been enlarged on bail by learned trial Court on 11.06.2015, therefore, case of the petitioners is also at par with that of co- accused. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief on the basis of rule of consistency.
6. The petitioners were arrested in this case on 05.03.2015 and trial has not been concluded so far.
Therefore, they cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite period without conclusion of the trial, which is not in sight in the near future. Even otherwise, the petitioners have successfully made out a case of post arrest bail as case of the petitioners also covers under Section (2) 497, Cr.P.C.
7. Keeping in view the above said circumstances and the rule of consistency, this petition is accepted and the petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.