MUHAMMAD ISHFAQ vs STATE etc
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 02/2018 registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, at Police Station ACE, Multan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the facts and circumstances of the case, including the rule of consistency with a co-accused and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause. The Lahore High Court held that the petition should be allowed, admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The court reasoned that a co-accused had already been granted bail, the possession of the land remained with the complainant with record entries corrected, the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause, and the petitioner had been incarcerated for eight months without progress in the trial, emphasizing that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused person.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused entitle another accused to bail on the rule of consistency?
- Can prolonged incarceration without progress in the trial serve as a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 02/2018 dated 26.01.2018, under Sections 420/468/471, PPC lead with Section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Multan.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that he forged documents pertaining to land owned by complainant by using his name Muhammad Ashfaq instead of Ashfaq Ahmad complainant and in the record he was shown as owner of the land. It is alleged that with the connivance of co-accused he tried to deprive the complainant of his property .
3. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and going through the record, it has been noticed that co-accused of the petitioner has already been bailed out by this Court. It has been brought on record that possession is still with the complainant and entries have been corrected in the record. Even otherwise offences alleged against the petitioner do not fall within the prohibitory clause. Petitioner is behind the bars in connected with this case for the last 8 months and his trial is not in progress. Speedy trial is right of an accused person. Petitioner's involvement in the commission of crime would be determined at trial stage. In the above backdrop, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.