RIAZ KHAN Versus State
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who is charged under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, in connection with the theft of identity cards. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's alleged presence on duty at the time of the incident established his sole liability, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that co-accused with similar roles had already been granted the same relief. The court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry, particularly given the sophisticated nature of the theft and the absence of incriminating evidence despite the petitioner's period in police custody. The court emphasized the principle of consistency in judicial treatment, ruling that the petitioner could not be denied bail when co-accused assigned similar roles had been granted the concession. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner's release on bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the relevant Magistrate.
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles entitle the petitioner to the same relief?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to recover incriminating evidence during police custody?
- Does the question of whether an accused was on duty at the time of an incident constitute grounds for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.--- Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him under section 409, P.P.C. R/W.5(2), P.C. Act, vide F.I.R. No.57 dated 1-9-2011 in Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar, has asked for his release on bail on the grounds that nothing incriminating came to the fore notwithstanding he remained in Police custody; that he was not present at the time of the occurrence in the premises wherefrom identity cards have been stolen and that two other co-accused who have been assigned similar role have been granted bail.
2. As against that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the petitioner was on duty at the relevant time, therefore, he alone is accountable for the left of the identity cards and that he being, prima facie, linked with a crime attracting prohibitory clause does not deserve the concession of bail.
3. I have gone through the record carefully and considered the submis-sions of the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Whether the petitioner was on duty at the relevant time and whether he alone could be held responsible when theft seems to have been committed in a secret and sophisticated manner, are the questions requiring further inquiry. The fact that the accused remained in Police custody, yet nothing came to fore to link him with a crime, would constitute yet another circumstance, which would weight in favour of bail rather than Jail.
5. Quite apart from this, when the co-accused assigned similar roles have been granted bail, petitioner cannot be dealt with differently. I, thus, allow this petition and direct the release of the petitioner on bail, if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.
H.B.T./17/P Bail allowed.