LIAQAT ALI Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by two accused persons in a case registered under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the alleged theft of medicines from the complainant's shop. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated following a habeas corpus petition filed against the concerned Station House Officer. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of theft and the circumstances of their implication. The Court held that while the principle of consistency was raised, the cases of the two petitioners were distinguishable. Regarding the first petitioner, who was an employee of the complainant and directly accused of stealing medicines of significant value with recovery still pending, the Court dismissed the bail application. Conversely, regarding the second petitioner, against whom there was no direct allegation of theft and whose involvement was limited to an alleged receipt of money, the Court confirmed the bail. The judgment reaffirms that bail entitlement depends on the specific allegations and evidence against each individual accused rather than a blanket application of consistency.
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail solely on the ground that co-accused have been granted the same concession?
- Does the filing of a prior habeas corpus petition against the police automatically entitle an accused to pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be denied to an accused where there is a direct allegation of theft and recovery of stolen property is pending?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130 of 2004 registered on 7-6-2004 in Police Station, Lohari Gate, Lahore under section 381, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Sheikh Muhammad Tufail, regarding the theft of cartons of medicines from his medicine shop by his employee Liaqat Ali and who had been selling the same to Abdul Sattar and his son Mubashar (of Al-Ghaffar Medicines) at throw away prices. He had sold away to them the stolen medicines of the value of Rs.50,000 and with the sale proceeds had purchased a motorcycle, a deep freezer, a deck and other articles and had also lent. an amount of Rs.42,000 to Muhammad Asif, co-accused.
3. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the police in connivance with the complainant as a habeas petition had been filed against the S.H.O. concerned and was disposed of on 7-6-2004 under the orders of this Court after the alleged detenus had been released, this case was registered on the same day against them under section 381, P.P.C. and that Abdul Sattar and Mubashar co-accused have already been granted bail in this case by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 25-6-2001 and that on the basis of principle of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the 'same concession and hence they be allowed pre-arrest bail.
5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides. Admittedly the habeas corpus petition No. (Crl. Miscellaneous No.523-H of 2004) which was regarding the alleged detention of Liaqat Ali and Asif petitioner had been decided by this Court on 7-6-2004 as no criminal case by then had been registered against them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that it was due to the said reason that the petitioner have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motives and hence they are entitled to the concession of bail.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State had resisted the petition on the ground that it was not due to filing of the habeas corpus petition that the petitioners had been involved in this case and that actually Liaqat Ali, petitioner No.1 had been working at the medicine shop of the complainant and it is he who in connivance with his co-accused had committed theft of medicines of the value of Rs.5,00,000 and had sold away the same. He had allegedly given an amount of Rs.12,000 to Asif petitioner No.2 and hence he is also liable for the offence.
7. There is no direct allegation of theft against Asif, petitioner No.2. It is not the case of the prosecution that Asif, petitioner No.2, had ever worked at the medicine shop of the complainant. If petitioner No. I had ever lent him any amount, it is altogether a different matter and merely the said fact is not enough to deny to him the concession of pre-arrest bail. But so far as Liaqat Ali petitioner No.1 is concerned, there is a clear allegation against him of committing theft of medicines of the approximate value of Rs.5,00,000 from the medicine shop of the complainant. It has been stated that the recovery is yet to be effected. Therefore, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, Liaqat Ali petitioner No.1 is not entitled to the concession of bail. But so far as Asif petitioner No.2 is concerned, as there is no direct allegation against him in the F.I.R. therefore, his case is distinguishable from petitioner No.1 and he can be allowed the concession of bail.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the bail application to the extent of Liaqat Ali, petitioner No.1 is dismissed and the order dated 30-6-2004 whereby the interim pre-arrest bail was allowed to him is hereby withdrawn. However, the bail application to the extent of Asif petitioner No.2 is accepted and the interim pre-arrest bail already granted to him is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.35,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within seven days.
H.B.T./L-125/L Order accordingly.