MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 151/2013 registered under Sections 406/109/462-E and 462-D of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station FIA, Multan, concerning allegations of gas theft. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who had already been admitted to bail, coupled with the deposit of the detection bill and restoration of connections. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner's case stood on an even better footing than that of the co-accused who were granted pre-arrest bail, the principle of consistency applied. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner, establishing that co-accused are entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when their roles are similar or subordinate to those already granted relief.
- Whether the principle of consistency applies to co-accused seeking pre-arrest bail?
- Is pre-arrest bail confirmable when the detection bill has been deposited and connections restored?
- Does a co-accused with a better footing than previously bailed co-accused qualify for pre-arrest bail?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 462-E, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 462-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner, namely, Muhammad Amjad seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 151/2013, dated 27.8.2013, under Sections 406/109/462-E and 462-D, PPC, registered at Police Station FIA, Multan, at the instance of Irtaza Haider, Assistant Director, FIA, Multan.
2. Allegedly, the petitioner committed theft of gas.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued the application at some length and focused on the point that the co-accused of the petitioner with similar role have been admitted to pre-arrest bail by the Court vide order dated 11.06.2015 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 977-B/2015 titled "Muhammad Taufique vs, The State, etc" and Criminal Misc. No. 1620-B/2015 titled "Abdul Hameed vs. The State and another". He tither added that allegedly the petitioner was recipient of that illegal supply made/arranged by the co-accused and since the detection bill has already been deposited with the concerned quarter and as the requisite connections have already been restored, thus, the arrest of the petitioner would not serve any purpose to the prosecution. Learned counsel referring to the case reported as Azmatullah vs The State and another {2011 SCM R 1935), and Shaukat A.I vs. The State (2008 P.Cr.R. 873) canvassed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail of the petitioner.
4. No-body entered appearance on behalf of the State despite valid service.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it was observed that the case of the A petitioner is at better footing than that of co-accused, namely, Muhammad Taufique and Abdul Hameed who have been allowed pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 11.06.2015, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 977-B/2015 and Criminal Misc. No. 1620-B/2015, thus, principle of consistency is applicable to the petitioner's case.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, this application is accepted subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days pre-arrest bail earlier granted to the petitioner vide order dated 01.09.2015 is confirmed.