MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Asif seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 584 of 2009 registered under Section 381 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mehmoodabad, Karachi. The core legal question is whether the applicant, who was not nominated in the F.I.R. but implicated through a co-accused's confessional statement as the mastermind of the theft, is entitled to pre-arrest bail, particularly on the rule of consistency given that other co-accused were granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the rule of consistency does not apply in every case and that bail can be declined on the basis of a co-accused's statement where involvement is prima facie established during investigation. The court dismissed the bail application and recalled the interim pre-arrest bail, laying down the principle that complicity revealed during interrogation through co-accused statements can suffice to deny bail in property offences.
- Whether bail can be declined on the basis of a statement of a co-accused?
- Does the rule of consistency apply in every case for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused not nominated in the F.I.R. but implicated during investigation entitled to pre-arrest bail?
- Section 381, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. FAISAL ARAB, J .---Applicant Muhammad Asif is booked in Crime No.584 of 2009 under section 381, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Mehmoodabad. Karachi. Though the applicant is not nominated in the F.I.R., yet during the investigation, the co-accused named the present applicant in his confessional statement that the applicant being an ex-employee of the complainant, was the master mind of the entire scheme of theft. During the investigation the nominated accused disclosed that the present accused had got him employed with the complainant who informed him that he had information about the keys of the Almirah and then kept the doors of the bath room and garage open. It was further disclosed by the nominated accused that he acted as per the advice of the applicant and in the evening the present applicant gave him his share of Rs.20,000.
2. Counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was not nominated in the F.I.R. and has been roped in on the basis of statement of the co-accused. It is further stated that nominated accused and his father have been granted bail by the trial Court, therefore, on the principle of rule of consistency the present applicant is also entitled for the concession of bail.
3. Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is an old lady of 75 years and theft was committed in her house by her servants and during the investigation the name of the present applicant came to light, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Counsel for the State has also opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that during the interrogation of the nominated accused the name of the present applicant came to light with regard to his involvement in the commission of the crime.
5. The rule of consistency cannot be applied in every case. In the present case during investigation and interrogation of the nominated accused the involvement of the present applicant is prima facie established. In the case reported in 1990 SCMR 315 bail was declined on the basis of statement of the co-accused. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the trial Court. Hence the bail application is dismissed. Interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 2-2-2010 stands recalled.
6. H.B.T./M-59-/K Bail refused.