Ajmal Javed vs State etc.
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the fraudulent transfer of foreign currency from a deceased person's bank account using forged cheques. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and on the rule of consistency given that a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, holding that the disputed amount remained in the accounts of the principal accused daughters, no incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner during investigation, and the rule of consistency applied as a co-accused with a similar role had been released on bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused shares an identical role with a co-accused who has already been granted bail, and no recovery or direct benefit is established at the interim stage, the rule of consistency warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused with an identical role has already been enlarged on bail?
- Does the absence of recovery of incriminating material during investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail in white-collar crimes?
- Whether bail can be granted when the primary beneficiaries of the alleged fraudulent transaction are persons other than the petitioner?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Ajmal Javed has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 23 dated 28.06.2019, in respect of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409 & 109 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station, FIA/CBC, Multan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that in the year, 2017 he alongwith his co-accused, in 'connivance with the bank employees, got transferred pounds-56152, through two cheques in the respective bank accounts of Mst.
3. Shumaila Javed and Mst. Naila Javed on 20.01.2017 from the account of Muhammad Aslam, father of the complainant after two days of his death in Saudi Arabia on 18.01.2017. Hence, this case was registered.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by learned counsels for the complainant and perused the record with their able assistance.
5. The allegation against the petitioner was only to the extent that he, being father of principal accused namely, Shumaila Javed and Naila Javed in whose account the amount in issue was transferred, provided assistance to them. Co-accused Adnan Javed, a son of the A present petitioner, with identical role of providing assistance to the principal accused, has already been enlarged on post arrest bail by the learned Court below vide order dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner was presumed to have prepared and used the said cheques resulting into the transfer of amount in issue in the respective bank accounts of his daughters but the question remains that why did he not get transferred the same in his own account instead he got it transferred in the name of his married daughters. It has been admitted during the course of arguments that the amount in issue is still lying in the accounts of the aforesaid ladies and the allegation of beneficiary to the transaction against the present petitioner prima facie stands nowhere. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 26.11.2019 and during investigation no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. In this backdrop, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief sought for on the basis of rule of consistency.
6. In view of above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (rupees five lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.