IKRAM ULLAH Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.171 dated 11-4-2008 registered under sections 223 and 224 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sections 5(2)/47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging facilitation of under-trial prisoners escaping from police custody. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on merits and based on the principle of consistency given that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The court held that since the petitioner had been in custody, the investigation was complete, trial had not progressed, most offences were bailable, no evidence supported the illegal gratification charge, and a co-accused at par had been granted bail, further incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The petition was consequently allowed, establishing that the principle of consistency applies when co-accused at par are granted bail, and pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment when trial progress is stagnant.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Does further incarceration of an accused serve any useful purpose when investigation is complete and there is no progress in the trial?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to collect supporting evidence for allegations of illegal gratification?
- Section 223, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- The petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.171 dated 11-4-2008 for offences under sections 223, 224, P.P.C. and 5(2)/47, Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Margalla, Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused while performing their official duties, facilitated the accused Muhammad Hussain and Javed Iqbal, an under trial prisoners to slip away from the police custody.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that bail of the co-accused has been allowed by this Court, hence in view of principle of consistency petitioner is also entitled to the same relief. He further submitted that allegations levelled in the F. I. R are fake and petitioner has been involved in this case just to save the skin of senior officers. He further adds that allegation of illegal gratification is not supported by any independent evidence; He further submitted that petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and investigation of this case has been completed; that his further detention in jail will serve no useful purpose to the prosecution. He further submitted that investigation of this case was conducted by an S.I. who was not competent to investigate the matter under the law.
4. Learned Federal Counsel strongly opposed this bail petition on the ground that there is no mala fide on the part of police to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case; that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific allegation. However, he conceded that role of the co-accused who has been allowed bail is at par with the present petitioner.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and have perused the record.
6. Petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. All the offences except offence under section 5(2)/47 Prevention of Corruption Act, are bailable. Prosecution has failed to collect any evidence regarding allegation of receiving illegal gratification. Although challan has been submitted in the Court yet there is no progress in the trial so far. Further incarceration of the petitioner at this stage would not serve any useful purpose and would amount to punishing him without a trial. Moreover, the co-accused of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court, therefore, keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioner also deserves the same concession.
7. For what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
H.B.T./I-41/ISL Bail granted.